We come to amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Gilmore. I observe that amendment No. 2 in the name of Deputy Hogan and amendment No. 5 in the name of Deputy Molloy are alternatives. I am suggesting, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 5 together. Is that satisfactory? Agreed. One decision should suffice in respect of these amendments.
European Parliament Elections Bill, 1993: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
"2.—The Electoral Act, 1992 is hereby amended by the deletion of section 9 and the substitution of the following:
‘9.—(1) A person shall be entitled to be registered as a European elector in a constituency if he has reached the age of eighteen years and if he was, on the qualifying date a citizen of Ireland, and—
(i) ordinarily resident in that constituency, or
(ii) residing outside the State but in a member state of the European Communities and is not registered as a European elector in any such state.
(2) The Minister for the Environment shall make regulations providing for—
(i) the inclusion in the register of European electors resident outside of the State, and
(ii) a scheme of voting for European electors resident outside of the State.'.".
The purpose of these amendments is to give Irish emigrants living in other member states of the European Union the right to vote in European Parliament elections. The Bill before us proposes to give this right to approximately 62,000 citizens of other member states living in Ireland. I support this proposal and I am very glad it has been made. However, there are approximately 630,000 Irish citizens living in other member states who will not have the right to vote in any of the Irish constituencies in the European Parliament elections.
Ireland is the only member state of the European Union which denies its emigrants the right to vote in their country of origin in the European Parliament elections. This is a disgrace and it should be corrected. The purpose of my amendment and of the other two amendments which have been tabled is to give citizens of this country the right to vote in their home constituencies in the European Parliament elections. The right of emigrants to vote in elections here has been debated in this House for a number of years. The Minister of State and his colleagues promoted a Private Members' Bill to that effect about two-and-a-half years ago. I was happy to support it then and have argued for it on a number of occasions since.
A number of reasons, one of them constitutional, have been advanced for not giving emigrants the right to vote in elections. The legislation proposes to give non-nationals living here the right to vote in European elections. Therefore, there is no constitutional reason for denying Irish emigrants living abroad the right to vote here in European elections. That right can be given to emigrants in this legislation which deals specifically with European elections. The argument that if emigrants had the right to vote in elections to the Dáil it would have a distorting effect on representation is spurious; it is the kind of argument used to deny women the right to vote. Whatever case can be made for such arguments in respect of national elections, there is no case for them in respect of elections to the European Parliament. All the people we are talking about are citizens of the European Union and surely they have a right to vote in their constituency of origin in elections to the European Parliament. All the logistical reasons advanced in the past about the difficulty of arranging polling stations and so on go out the window in this case because we are dealing with European elections which are held between fixed dates, the election counts are all held at the same time and the elections are to the same institution.
When these amendments were debated on Committee Stage we were told that the Government was considering the question of voting rights for emigrants and the introduction of a constitutional amendment to deal with that. During the debate on other legislation, a commitment was given that it would be done in the lifetime of this Government and that is very welcome. This measure does not have to wait until the broader issue of voting rights for emigrants is dealt with. It is something that can be dealt with in this legislation. It is anomalous to legislate to give rights to citizens of other member states living here and to deny those rights to citizens of our own State who are living in other member states of the Community. It is wrong that we should be the only member state of the Community to deny our citizens the right to vote in their home constituency in European elections. The Minister should accept the amendment even at this late stage and give our emigrants some hope that this Government is serious about giving them their basic political rights.
These amendments provide the Minister with a unique opportunity to indicate the Government's willingness to agree in principle to votes for emigrants. The Minister has indicated that there would be difficulties under European law in doing this. However, I am anxious to ascertain the legal advice he received since the debate on Committee Stage to establish if the articles in the European Community law to which he referred can be amended or changed to allow the Government to accede to the wishes of this House that emigrants be allowed to vote in their country of origin in the European Parliament elections. Deputy Gilmore stated that there is no constitutional barrier to allowing emigrants to vote for people with whom they are more likely to have an affinity in the European elections. The 1994 European elections could constitute a trial run.
Regulations will have to be put in place to ensure that the system is not abused but all parties in the House agree in principle to allowing votes to emigrants. I urge the Minister to examine the practical implications of allowing emigrants to vote in elections. This is an opportunity for the Government to see what difficulties might arise in other elections as a result of this decision. I ask the Minister to assure the House that he will look sympathetically at giving emigrants the right to vote in European elections and give us the benefit of whatever legal advice he received in this regard since the debate on Committee Stage.
There are 62,000 people who wish to vote in their country of origin. My colleague, Deputy Bell, may have a different view on the effect this might have on the outcome of elections in the light of his experience in 1989 when about ten votes separated him and another candidate, Jim Fitzsimons. The fact of emigrants being able to vote might influence the result of an election, but the likelihood of that in the context of large European constituencies is not great. It would be difficult to imagine such a close result in a large constituency. However, the result in Deputy Bell's case was unusual and shows that it can happen. Perhaps we can discuss this further when we hear the Minister's reply, but certainly the Minister should give some indication of how the wishes of the House can be accommodated in this legislation.
My amendment has the same common objective as the other two. It reads: "the Minister for the Environment shall make regulations extending the right to vote in European Parliament elections to Irish citizens residing outside the State who have reached the age of 18 years". This election Bill presents an opportunity to the Government to implement its commitment in the Programme for Government to extend voting rights to Irish citizens living abroad. It is strange that this opportunity has not been taken, nor was it taken when the Presidential Elections Bill came before the Seanad recently. On both occasions the Government turned down the proposals of the Opposition parties. A number of political parties are in favour of extending the vote in some form or another to Irish citizens living abroad; it is not generally available at the moment. Fine Gael, Democratic Left and the Progressive Democrats have expressed their support of the principle. The party of the Minister of State, Deputy Stagg, also indicated their support of this principle. That means four parties in the House indicated their support for extending the vote to emigrants. The first opportunity to do so was not taken up.
We know from amendments tabled on Committee Stage that the Government is opposed to extending the vote to emigrants on this occasion, even though the complication involved in extending the vote to emigrants for Dáil elections, which had been mentioned as one of the difficulties, does not arise. The constitutional obstacle referred to by the Attorney General would not be an obstacle in the case of extending the vote in European Parliament elections to Irish citizens residing abroad.
We are in a unique position. There is no major problem in relation to time. The European Parliament elections are many months away and there is ample time for the Dáil to prepare, debate, pass and implement the necessary legislation. The Minister referred to the drawing up of a voters' register. The annual revision of the voters' register which takes place at this time of the year need not be an inhibiting factor. If the vote were extended to Irish citizens residing abroad a supplementary list could be added to the register. The Minister gave a weak excuse on Committee Stage in respect of difficulties in this regard. It is easy to make excuses when one does not want to do something. One gets the impression that the reasons put forward by the Government not to extend the vote to emigrants or to Irish citizens residing in other EC member states on this occasion is because of a general reluctance to do so rather than any great administrative difficulty.
On earlier Stages the Minister referred to a document which had been sent to his Department by the European Union. He sent me a copy of it. It is a Commission proposal dated 27 October for a council directive. The first paragraph of the explanatory memorandum to this document refers to the scale of the problem for Community citizens who have availed themselves of their fundamental freedom to travel and stay in a member state other than their own. European integration has become a reality of which they have personal experience. Today some 5 million citizens of the Union are living in a member state of which they are not nationals. There are 630,000 Irish living outside their home member state and the number of resident citizens of other member states residing in Ireland is 62,000. Page 2 of that document, under the heading "The Right to Vote", states that, with the exception of Ireland, all member states have adopted a solution based on entitling their nationals living abroad to vote. It lists the ways in which the member countries of the European Union have done that. From an administrative point of view there is no great difficulty in relation to this matter. It appears that the Government is reluctant to apply the principle of extending the vote to our emigrants.
Under section 15 of the Electoral (No.2) Act, 1986, voting by Irish diplomats abroad is allowed on the basis that they are deemed resident in this State. How can the Government regard extending the vote to Irish diplomats living abroad as being constitutional while declaring it unconstitutional to extend the vote to other citizens residing abroad? It appears that diplomats, the privileged public servants who work abroad for the Department of Foreign Affairs, are given the right to vote in elections at home, but other public servants residing abroad working for Departments other than Foreign Affairs are not given that right. If that is the position it is an anomalous one. If the principle is conceded in relation to some servants of the State living abroad, surely it should be extended to all servants of the State residing abroad.
Articles 16.1.2 of the Constitution envisages that the franchise will be granted to all Irish citizens who comply with the formalities of registration. Article 16.2.2 of the Constitution fixes constituency ratios based on the population for each constituency. If those requirements can be complied with in relation to Irish diplomats, it is fair to assume that they can also be complied with in relation to other persons residing abroad. The constitutionality of section 15 of the 1986 Act has not been challenged and, therefore, it is assumed that it is deemed to be constitutional. I raised this matter previously but the Minister did not reply because of time constraints on Second Stage. Those difficulties are not covered in the European Parliament Elections Bill, 1993.
If the appropriate arrangements are made the franchise can be extended. In recent years the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have carried out extensive studies of the administrative arrangements that have been put into place in other countries in relation to meeting the principle enshrined in these amendments of extending the vote to citizens residing outside the home state. My amendment is couched in general terms to give the Minister freedom to implement the principle in a form which he may deem appropriate. It is now November 1993 and the European elections will not take place until 9 June 1994. There is ample time to make the necessary arrangements to enable those residing abroad who wish to vote in that election to register.
I agree with the main thrust of the amendments. I was reminded by a comment by Deputy Hogan that during the last election five of my immediate family travelled home. If the other 45 had been able to afford to travel home or if a postal vote had been allowed, I would have secured my seat on the first count and four recounts and the expense involved would not have been necessary. However, my colleague, Jim Fitzsimons, may have had 55 first preference votes in London. Assuming he would not have had those votes I would have won the vote by a margin of 45.
It is necessary to extend the vote to all Irish citizens within specified limits. The intention of the Labour Party Bill was not to leave this matter open-ended. If a section providing for the necessary reguations were included in the Bill that would cover the matter. It is Labour Party policy to extend the vote to emigrants and I am sure that will continue to be its policy. In Opposition we supported that measure and since we entered Government the policy has not changed in that regard. Some time limit should be introduced in extending the vote to emigrants. For example, somebody who left Ireland 50 years ago should not be allowed to vote. Obviously some time limit would have to be specified because people who have been away from the country for 40 or 50 years would have lost touch with what is happening here. All Irishmen and women should have this basic right, but some mechanism in this regard should be built into regulations under all Bills dealing with parliamentary, presidential and European elections. I agree with the main thrust of the amendments, particularly the first two.
I thank the Deputies opposite for their contributions. The Programme for Government covers the position as outlined in the three amendments under discussion. There are no constitutional difficulties in dealing with the matter in terms of European elections. I did not say that difficulties would arise in terms of European legislation; I said so in relation to another amendment. There are no arguments on this side of the House or the other side against the principle of granting votes to emigrants. What has to be decided is the right time and place to implement that principle. It would be unwise in the extreme to implement the principle piecemeal, on the basis of giving broad powers to the Minister as proposed in the amendment. If such wide powers were granted to the Minister there would be uproar from the Opposition, and rightly so.
Despite the principle being accepted on all sides that emigrants should have a vote at home, there are great differences as to how that should be applied. For example, the Fine Gael Party believes that a number of people should be elected to the Seanad by emigrants. Some Members believe that all emigrants born in Ireland should have a vote regardless of how long they have been away from the country and others believe there should be a five year cut-off point. The Government is examining the matter with a view to implementing the Programme for Government which accepts the principle of granting votes to emigrants. It is very important that we get this matter right. There are many issues involved but I do not wish to raise them today because that is an argument for another day.
On the point raised by Deputy Molloy concerning ambassadors, he was a Minister when detailed legal advice was sought and given to the Government on that issue. The Bill has not been challenged constitutionally and there is no difficulty in that regard. However, if it is challenged there is the possibility of a constitutional difficulty arising. The advice given when Deputy Molloy was Minister was that the legislation was constitutionally safe. The point should be made that there is a difference between people who are abroad on a voluntary basis and those who are sent abroad on Government business. Every reforming Bill — this is minor reforming legislation — in the electoral area will give an opportunity to the Opposition to raise these arguments. They have been raised on three different Bills in the past nine months. We are discussing the same points raised in the select committee and I am sure that is a useful exercise.
Certainly not when the Minister is not conceding the point. We will continue to raise the argument until he does so.
I am not in a position to concede the point because examination of the matter has not been completed by the Government. When that is done the principle as agreed will be brought into legislative effect. I am not in a position to accept the amendments and, given what I have said and the intention of the Government in the matter, I ask Deputies to withdraw the amendments.
I do not know when I have heard such a pathetic response to amendments tabled in this House. The Minister has given no answer or argument against these amendments. He was really scraping the barrel in suggesting that he could not accept the amendments because they might give the Minister too much power and regulations would have to be made. In dredging up that argument he sounded like a coy matron refusing a drink. The Minister acknowledges that there is no constitutional objection to this principle and there is no difficulty in terms of European law. There seems to be agreement on the principle of granting voting rights to emigrants. He said that the only issue to be decided is the right time and place——
And format.
Surely the right time and place in terms of the European elections is before the elections are held. If emigrants are not given the right to vote before the elections are held, the next time Irish immigrants living abroad will have an opportunity to vote in European elections will be 1999.
They will have the right to vote in the next election.
They will not have the right to vote in their home constituencies in this country, which is what the amendment proposes. If they are not given the right to vote here under this Bill they will not have an opportunity to exercise that right until 1999. By turning down this amendment the Government is saying that it agrees in principle that emigrants should have the right to vote but it does not want to give them that right now. There is no justification for that.
This is no longer a question of technicality, constitutionality or logistics; it is a political question as to whether the Government is politically sincere about giving emigrants the right to vote. The footballers who played for this country last Wednesday were all either emigrants or the children of emigrants, none of whom has the right to vote in elections here. We are quite happy to cheer them but not to give them the right to vote. The 630,000 citizens of this country living in various member states of the European Union, whether they work in semi-State organisations or emigrated for personal reasons, are citizens of the European Union and have the same rights as other citizens of the European Union. The only right they do not have is the right to vote in their home country. They will be the only citizens of the European Union who, in the next European elections will not have the right to vote in their country of origin. It is hypocrisy on the part of the Government to state that it is in favour of the principle of granting emigrants the right to vote while at the same time denying them that right.
I proposed a similar amendment to the Presidential Elections Bill and agreed on Report Stage of that Bill to withdraw the amendment as a result of a commitment by the Minister of State that the question would be examined, legislation introduced, administrative arrangements made and a constitutional referendum held well in time for the next presidential election. That cannot happen in this case. If these amendments are not accepted, emigrants will be denied the right to vote in their home country in the next European elections.
I very much regret the Minister's negative response to these amendments. It is time Members of this House, some of whom have been saying for a long time they are in favour of giving emigrants the right to vote, were given an opportunity of declaring where exactly they stand on the question of emigrants' voting rights. I ask that the amendment be put to the House.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 52.
Tá
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Cox, Pat.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Keogh, Helen.
- McManus, Liz.
- Molloy, Robert.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Sargent, Trevor.
Níl
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burton, Joan.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Ellis, John.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Power, Seán.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Rabbitte and Gilmore; Níl, Deputies Dempsey and Ferris.
Amendment declared lost.
As I indicated earlier, we discussed amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 5 together as being alternatives and I indicated one decision should suffice in respect of these amendments.
I do not think that was agreed.
It is the normal procedure, Deputy.
It was not agreed. It was not put to the House.
The Chair indicated this.
It was not put to the House.
It did not have to be put. It was an announcement by the Chair. There was no dissenting voice, Deputy.
Under Standing Orders, surely the proposers of the amendments are entitled to have their amendments put to the House.
In situations such as this, the procedure is that if the House has decided the general principle contained in any one of a group of logically alternative amendments, as is the case in this instance, it should not be required to take that decision or a similar one again. When we come to the amendments, if Deputies insist on putting their amendments to the House, the Chair will oblige.
Thank you.
We now come to amendment No. 2 which has been discussed with amendment No. 1 and on which I am sure my views are known to Deputy Hogan. May I ask how the amendment stands?
I am not moving the amendment.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
We now come to amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Sargent. I observe that amendment No. 4 is an alternative and I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together in order. Again, one decision should suffice in respect of the amendments.
On a point of order, can I establish whether you took amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 5 together?
If the Deputy wishes to press his amendment when we come to No. 5, he may do so. I have said so already.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 2, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"(2) No person may be at the same time a member of the Oireachtas or other public elective body and of the European Parliament, and, if any person who is already a member of the Oireachtas or other public elective body becomes a member of the European Parliament s/he shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his/her first seat.".
This amendment relates broadly to the issues of a dual mandate as a TD and an MEP. Having discussed this on Committee Stage it has become clear that there is a widespread feeling that the positions of TD and MEP should be distinct and separate and should not be held by the same person. Following on that debate the Minister stated that there was an EC law which allows members of national parliaments to be members of the European Parliament also. I noted from his comments that he was concerned with adhering to that ruling, although in principle he felt there was merit in distinguishing between the two posts.
This opens a wider argument in relation to our dealings with other member states of the European Union. We are all sovereign states and there are times when the collective wisdom of the European Union may not concur with the feelings and the needs of people in a member state, in this case, Ireland. This amendment is one example. The other European partners may say that their national parliament is close to the European parliament and therefore they have no difficulty with people holding both posts. However, in Ireland's case, we are on the periphery and for one person to carry out both jobs requires much travel. It also necessitates attendance at committee meetings — in other words, longer hours of attendance than has been the case heretofore.
I would argue that there are unique factors which give the provisions of this amendment merit in Irish circumstances. I would therefore ask the Minister to reconsider the ruling of the European Union when replying and to bear in mind that the provisions of this amendment constitute an option. Indeed, if we are behaving ourselves properly, being completely conciliatory as a European partner, we should seek uninformity in all things. But the Danish exmaple in the case of the Maastricht Treaty highlighted the fact that there are times when a member state must take some initiative, think for itself and provide for its circumstances. I would argue that this is one of those times when the provisions of this amendment should apply.
It is time in Ireland — and, I am sorry, in other places — that the level of cynicism about politics is compounded when people see a Member of the Oireachtas also being an MEP. Bearing in mind the huge workload, there may have to be a compromise struck, when two people could be performing those two separate functions. But we must also bear in mind that the accumulated income of one person with a dual mandate will seem astronomical to those who observe politics through the media or have a keen personal interest in it. It is time for us to do whatever we can to dispel that cynicism, and that effort would be greatly enhanced by acceptance of my amendment.
Traditionally MEPs here have been viewed as the poor relation of the TD, the former being somebody who went off and did something or other in Europe — we were not quite sure what — while the TD got on with the real work of running the country, so to speak. That was the image that obtained until recently, when we began to engage in serious discussions about the European Union and its role in all of our lives. I would argue that that perception ought to change. Whereas the European Parliament does not have anything like the power of the European Commission, henceforth it will be much more meaningful to the lives of our citizens than has been the case heretofore, acquiring a distinct character of its own. However, this means that the workload of MEPs is increasing simultaneously with that of TDs. In those circumstances I consider my amendment very relevant, particularly in the way European affairs are developing.
Those outside politics, employed or unemployed, or in positions in which they might as well be unemployed by virtue of their income, would look at the dual mandate of TD and MEP as an absolute case of double jobbing. We ought to recognise such cynicism and ensure that our legislation gives expression to people's views. It is my belief that the views I have articulated are widely held.
I have no doubt that the Minister will assure us that all parties are free to introduce their own rules in regard to the dual mandate. However, unless the Government makes its position clear, it will be perceived as not caring in this respect. Perhaps the Minister will say that the Labour Party will do so unilaterally, which would be a very good example to other parties, both within and without Government. Such assurance would be welcomed, but nonetheless it would not have the same attraction as if supported and enacted in legislative form.
Certainly, the view of the Green Party is very clear: we would not advocate the dual mandate of TD and MEP were such to be the case after the next European elections. However, I agree with the case being advanced that every party should draw up its own rules. Nonetheless, if this amendment were supported it would render the matter more urgent and warrant attention by Government. I do not accept the argument advanced that European law prevents us from so doing. Rather it is a case of Ireland legislating for circumstances prevailing here which are different from those obtaining in other countries. Therefore I seek support for my amendment.
I would have to urge opposition to this amendment, not on the basis that I do not agree with the sentiments expressed in its provisions, but because we are a great nation for drawing up rules for the other fellow. For example, when I first stood for election to Dáil Éireann I was a senior national trade union official, Deputy Gilmore having been employed in another capacity in the same organisation. We were given leave of absence for one term of office, following which we no longer had a job. Of course, Deputy Sargent is in a rather unique position in that he can remain a Member of this House for as long as he wishes and if not re-elected, can revert to his former position of school principal, having appointed, I assume, a substitute in the meantime. It is all very well to talk about the position of the other fellow and what should happen him. But were we to lay down a regulation to the effect that all school teachers after one term of office as a TD must relinquish their former position and appoint full-time teachers in their place rather than maintaining substitutes — sometimes for 15 to 20 years — on a lower rate of pay while Members enjoy additional incomes, I wonder what the reaction would be.
A general evacuation.
That point should be put on the record, because we continuously draw up regulations affecting the other fellow's pocket, as in the case of my good colleague, Deputy Molloy. It is all right for somebody in the audience to stand up and make a proposition as long as somebody else pays the bill.
In the case of European Parliament elections it is only right and proper that if a Deputy becomes a candidate and is elected to the European Parliament, he or she should give an undertaking not to stand in the next general election. That is reasonable. But in those circumstances, having just fought an election, to expect him or her to resign the following day and fight an unnecessary by-election would not be right or proper. My party has had only one Member of the European Parliament, who has not held a dual mandate. So we can say we have a clear record in that respect. I want to assure the House that should I be elected to the European Parliament and nominated for the next general election, I would declare immediately that I would not stand as a candidate in the general election. Perhaps Deputy Sargent would then consider nominating somebody who could pick up a seat for the Green Party in Louth.
I do not think it is very practical to impose on Deputies a condition such as outlined in this amendment, in what I would regard as a very narrow-minded fashion, while saying at the same time that Members of the Oireachtas should be encouraged to declare that they will not contest a forthcoming general election or hold their dual mandate indefinitely. However, in some cases the overlap may amount to only some months, so that the position would take care of itself.
For the information of the House, I should say that if and when any Member of the Labour Party secures a dual mandate, he or she would receive one salary only, the other would not be paid. Equally, I should point out that the salary enjoyed by MEPs representing this country is equivalent to that paid to a TD serving this Parliament, but would amount to about half the salary of a German MEP. With the exception of the United Kingdom, our MEP rate of pay is the lowest in the European Union.
My amendment No. 4 would meet Deputy Bell's requirement whereby members of the Oireachtas who offer themselves as candidates to the European Parliament would have to make a decision at the following general election as to whether they wish to continue as a member of the European Parliament or offer themselves again for election to the national parliament. That is reasonable, particularly when one considers the new powers of the European Parliament. The public will require that member to be more diligent than at present in respect of information disseminated to their constituents in regard to what is happening in the European Parliament. In other words the members of the European Parliament will be required to remove some of the democratic deficit which exists between Europe, their constituencies and the national parliament.
The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs was established with a view to the possibility of giving a right of audience to Members of the European Parliament. That is not working successfully because meetings of joint committees are held when Members of the European Parliament are in their own parliament in Brussels or Strasbourg. The timing of those meetings is such that Members of the European Parliament cannot participate and give the benefit of their wisdom and information to national parliamentary committees. The practices from the past clearly indicate that the public do not take kindly to people who continue to be Members of the Oireachtas and of the European Parliament. More and more they will elect people to the European Parliament who will be able to give that job their full attention. The electorate will consider that membership of a national parliament is a distraction to membership of the European Parliament and vice versa.
The amendment in my name seeks to ensure that when a Member of the Oireachtas decides to contest the European elections and is subsequently elected that in the following general election the candidate must decide whether to continue as a Member of the Oireachtas or to be a full time Member of the European Parliament. The idea that one can continue ad infinitum to be a Member of the Oireachtas as well as a Member of the European Parliament is something to which the public do not take too kindly. Election results have clearly indicated the view of the electorate on this matter during the past number of years. The Minister indicated on Committee Stage that he would have a problem, under European law, in accepting this type of proposal. Is there any way he can circumvent the ruling of the European legislation with which he has a difficulty? If proposed amendments can be made to that article of European Union legislation we would like to hear about them because the present practice is not satisfactory.
I have no difficulty with the argument made by Deputy Hogan concerning the dual mandate but I would have some difficulties with Deputy Sargent's argument. When Deputy Sargent starts to practise what he preaches rather than a matter of optics then he can justify the statements——
I am not a Member of the European Parliament.
——from the high moral ground he adopted in the debate — purer than pure and whiter than the driven snow. The Deputy has resigned from school teaching. When the person who is filling the Deputy's position on a temporary and insecure basis gets the job on a full time basis——
It is permanent.
——then the Deputy will be able to make his argument effectively. The optics of resigning from the county council are different from resigning from the post of school teacher. The Deputy should take the opportunity to fortify his position by doing that.
How does the Minister know I have one? Do not believe Deputy Bell.
I want to make it quite clear that only two Members out of 15 in the European Parliament have a dual mandate, one of whom — Deputy Cox — holds the position on a temporary basis. In 1976, 13 out of 15 had dual mandates. The dual mandate is a matter for political parties. It is inappropriate to try to put a ruling of that kind into legislation. The electorate will not tolerate people holding down two posts, either of which requires full time attention. The work of a Deputy involves at least 60 — it could be 80 — hours per week, he certainly cannot do that and hope to do the European Parliament job as well. The electorate will not tolerate it. The political parties should now take the formula put forward by Deputy Hogan that there can only be a short term dual mandate.
The electorate in Ulster has no problem when they elected Deputy Blaney.
That is true and perhaps the electorate should be allowed to judge and decide. Generally speaking that would not be the case. The candidate referred to by the Deputy is an exceptionally successful politician and perhaps that is the reason his two mandates are acceptable to the electorate. That position may continue to be acceptable to the electorate but I do not wish to make an election speech on behalf of that particular dual mandate holder. European law prevents what is proposed, we cannot be selective and take the pieces of European law that suit us best and ignore the parts we do not like. Even if that law did not exist it would be inappropriate to put this type of formula into legislation. It should be left to the political parties and those who select the candidates to do so. On that basis I cannot accept the amendments.
I am withdrawing the amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 3, before line 1, to insert the following:
"3.—The Minister for the Environment shall make regulations extending the right to vote in European Parliament Elections to Irish citizens residing outside the State who have reached the age of eighteen years.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
We come to amendment No. 6 in the name of Deputy Molloy. Amendment No. 7 is an alternative. It is suggested that we take amendments Nos. 6 and 7 together. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, line 4, after "occurs" to insert "and having confirmed in writing from the Secretary of the party concerned that the person is a member of that party".
This amendment relates to the replacement list of candidates. If the elected candidate subsequently gave up the position, resigned, or for some other reason no longer continued as a member of the European Parliament, and a replacement had to be sought, the first name on the replacement list would be taken provided that person was still a member of that same party. The legislation proposed by the Minister specifies that the replacement candidate be asked to make a statutory declaration that he is a member of the party. I would have thought it would be more appropriate to have required the party to confirm that the person was still a member of that party. When I put this to the Minister on Committee Stage he said the party had the option of challenging the replacement candidate who stated in his declaration that he was a member of the party if the party stated he was not. That would involve a legal process and going through the courts. If a candidate felt aggrieved at being deemed not to be a member of a party, he should have that right. It would have been more appropriate in preparing the legislation to have put the onus on the political party to confirm whether the candidate is still a member of the party or not.
Members are elected to the European Parliament for five years and there can be dramatic changes in that period. There may be four or five names on the replacement list and earlier candidates on the list may not wish to avail of the invitation to accept the vacancy — as happened in the past. I can instance a member of the European Parliament whose name was not the first on the replacement list but others higher on the list turned down the invitation to replace the candidate who had stood down.
It has to be taken into account that anyone on the replacement list may eventually be invited to fill the vacancy although that person may have long since severed his connection with that political party. There may be good reasons as to why that person may have done so but the fact is that he or she would not represent the party.
It would be more proper to recognise in the Bill the rights of political organisations to confirm membership. There are no criteria to determine who is a member of a political party, but that would be done by the officers and officials who are charged with managing the political organisation. A political organisation may have rules which if not kept disqualify a person from membership and replacement candidate may have disqualified himself or herself by not complying with those rules but nevertheless may claim to be a member. A great deal of unnecessary confusion in the event of a dispute on a case similar to this could have been avoided if the onus had been put in the first place on the political party to confirm by statutory declaration that the candidate was a member rather than leaving it to the candidate involved.
The Committee Stage debate on this amendment was very interesting and some amazing suppositions and assumptions were presented on behalf of those trying to defeat the amendment. The intention of the amendment is to establish the candidate's membership of the political party. This is purely and simply to allow the best possible continuation of the democratic will of the people who cast their vote at the previous election. We should encourage people to vote in a way that reflects the way they think about politics rather than personalities. The business of politics ought to be about the ideas, policies, teamwork and the ability to organise a representative body whether it be in the county council, in Government or in this case the European Parliament. It is reasonable to encourage people to think about politics in a deeper sense than simply talking about the next candidate on the list who may or may not be a member of the party which presented the list originally. This amendment gives some assurance to the people that they will not be represented by somebody they probably would not vote for five years down the road because the candidate is no longer a member of the political party. It is fair that the political party should be allowed to continue to hold the seat in the name of the party rather than having a candidate who jumped ship or whatever taking it. People would feel they had been sold out in that case. Of course the friends and family of such a candidate would be quite happy, but we have to ensure as much as possible that the candidate has a mandate from the people.
I accept the argument can go both ways but the parties are being left out in the cold when there is not some provision for a declaration as outlined in the amendment. The alternative of leaving the matter to the courts, as has been suggested, would make the legal profession happy because it is another job for them but I do not think we should depend on the courts to decide our legislation. If we can enact good legislation that prevents trouble from the start, that is what the amendment will achieve.
The role of a general secretary, mentioned in my amendment, was referred to on Committee Stage. From the debate it seems that a general secretary in some parties is considered to be a type of dictator. In the Green Party we do not have a general secretary but a co-ordinator whose role is to co-ordinate rather than to issue decrees or unilateral decisions. Parties have their own structures and it is simply a matter of providing for a person to make a declaration, having consulted others, in line with party structures. That is what I had in mind when I used the term "general secretary". The amendment should be considered on that basis. I want to ensure that democracy comes into play as much as possible in the selection of the replacement candidate. I have no wish to take rights from the people but I want to ensure that politics is, as it ought to be, about policies and ideas and not simply about personalities or cults.
I find it strange to have to make the same replies to the same arguments, but obviously that is the system we operate. Today we are simply repeating what we said on Committee Stage. The requirement for a statutory declaration by the next person on the list is a very strong instrument. Somebody who makes a false declaration is committing a crime and is liable to prosecution and remedial action arising from that. We are seeking to meet the case made to us by the European Parliament consequent on the filling of the vacancy in the Dublin constituency in 1992, that they were not satisfied that the principle of the elected list being followed was being followed. We are removing the right of the political party to determine whether a name can go forward. If we do not make the change future replacements will have to run the gauntlet of the European Protocol Committee of the European Parliament who examine any replacement candidate. We are now proposing that we put the onus to challenge on the political party if they feel that the individual they originally nominated is no longer——
That is the wrong way round.
——a member of that party. A political party is much better fitted to make that challenge than the individual originally nominated by the political party who has now made a statutory declaration that he is still a member but has been challenged by the party. If the individual had to make the challenge he might not be in a financial position to do so whereas political parties seem to find funding for various reasons when they need it.
Neither Ross Perot nor the Taoiseach would have that problem.
Other individuals may not have the finances. An unemployed teacher might find himself in that position and would not have the funds required to challenge the Green Party for instance if they said he was no longer a member of the party. On the point as to who determines the criteria for membership of a political party, certainly we should not ask the Clerk of the Dáil to make that decision. It would be a grossly unfair burden to place on any official of this House but it is the type of question that would have to be determined by the Clerk of the Dáil in making a decision on whether a person is a member of a political party. It is right that the political party, who would have the resources should make the case and make a challenge if such a challenge were to be made.
I am not at all satisfied with the Minister's explanation. If a replacement candidate was a member of the party when he was put on the replacement list but then lost all interest in the party, followed a different career and lost touch with the party, he would not be aware of the rules of the party in the event of getting a letter from the Clerk of the Dáil asking him to accept an invitation to become a member of the European Parliament to replace the elected member who had resigned. In all innocence the person might sign a declaration that he is a member of the political party without being familiar with the rules. Surely commonsense would lead to the conclusion that the only body that can confirm membership is the group charged with the management of the political party, those who have been elected to positions of authority for that party. What the Minister proposes does not make sense and could lead to some awkward cases and unnecessary difficulties where individuals, having received the invitation unexpectedly might seek to accept it and make untrue claims. While such people might be convinced that the declaration was true that it might not be so because the criteria for membership could have changed and they might not have fulfilled the requirements of the party in regard to membership. There might be a case in which a person would not know whether he was a member of a political party if he had ceased to be active in it. The Minister is going the wrong way about this and I hope it does not lead to cases which may end up in the courts.
If the Minister was drawing up this legislation himself it would have been the other way round but because of his interpretation of some letter he received from the European Parliament, he is putting the onus for determining whether one is a member of a political party solely on the individual on the replacement list. In other words, he is leaving it to a unilateral declaration on the part of the individual replacement candidate rather than to the registered political party who named him or her as a member at the time of the election.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 7.
In page 4, to delete lines 13 to 16 and substitute the following:
"(c) in case the relevant representative so elected was at such election a candidate of a registered political party, he or she is a member in good standing as confirmed by the Clerk of the Dáil through a written declaration presented by the General Secretary or similarly representative specified officer of the registered party in question.".
Question "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 5, line 14, after "selected" to insert "provided that that person is a representative of the registered political party causing the casual vacancy".
In the unusual circumstances of the list being exhausted after European Parliament elections and before the next elections, the section requires that Dáil Éireann would fill the vacancy. There is scope for abuse by whatever combination of parties is in Government at the time as they could dictate who could fill the vacancy. The person who should fill the vacancy should come from the political party whose candidate originally won the election. My amendment is along the same lines of previous amendments put forward. The will of the electorate in European Parliament elections will have given a certain result and their will should continue to be exercised in the filling of the casual vacancy.
What happens in the event of all the replacement lists being exhausted?
Fine Gael gets the seat.
As the Bill stands, if a vacancy arises candidates are invited from the list of replacement candidates on which the member who caused the vacancy was included. If all of them turn down the invitation the matter is brought before this House and it can choose from the replacement lists of the other members of the European Parliament who were successful. What happens if none of the candidates on those replacement lists is willing to accept the position?
We are trying to observe the will of the electorate and give list B the importance it deserves. We want people to know that when they vote for a candidate on list A they are voting also for candidates on list B. We are seeking to ensure that this happens in practice and that a person on list B will replace a candidate who causes a vacancy. The amendment proposes that a political party should select a person who did not even go before the electorate.
That is what the Dáil will do.
That is not what the Dáil will do. The amendment proposes that when the list is exhausted the political party of which the candidate who caused the vacancy was a member should select somebody out of a hat, as it were.
Select whom?
Whomever the party wish to select. That is what the amendments suggests. I presume it would select a member of its party who was not on the list. That would not fulfil the requirement that candidates on list B must be elected by universal suffrage similar to those on list A.
The Dáil will fill vacancies and may only do so from lists of candidates who have gone before the electorate. That would not include candidates from the list of the party or group of which the candidate who caused the vacancy was a member because its list would be exhausted. It would have to be from the list of other candidates who went before the electorate in that constituency.
Deputy Molloy asked what would happen if the lists for all candidates in a constituency were exhausted. The legislation does not cover that matter and it is not envisaged that such a situation would ever arise. On average one would be talking about 60 persons refusing a seat in the European Parliament at the same time. It is not envisaged that such a position would ever arise and, therefore, it is not covered in the legislation.
There is no response to that.
One should always have a fall-back position. Under this legislation we could end up with no provision to fill a vacancy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.