Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Nov 1996

Vol. 471 No. 3

European Parliament Elections Bill, 1996: Second Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Allen)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

The first Act relating to elections to the European Assembly, as it was then known, was enacted in 1977. In the 20 years since, we have had four elections to the Parliament and numerous amendments to the law, some significant and some minor. At present a person inquiring about European electoral law would need to refer to six separate statutes as well as regulations. With the next elections to the Parliament due in 1999, the time is opportune to update the law and bring the entire electoral code for the European Parliament within the pages of a single document.

This Bill will consolidate and amend the domestic law relating to European Parliament elections. It will set out a comprehensive procedure for conducting an election, from the appointment of the polling day to taking the poll, counting the votes, questioning the result and filling casual vacancies.

The Bill represents a continuation of the ongoing programme of electoral law reform. Dáil, Presidential and local electoral codes have been consolidated and updated since 1992 together with the referendum code. Given the special importance of electoral law and its direct relevance to each citizen, making the law more accessible and comprehensible to all is a necessary and desirable objective.

Unlike other electoral codes, there are no specific constitutional provisions relating to European elections. However, the European Community in a decision of 1976 laid down certain principles relating to the holding of direct elections to the European Parliament which have direct application in all member states. It may be useful for the House if I detail the main principles still in force.

Representatives to the Assembly, re-named the Parliament in 1987, are elected for a term of five years, each outgoing Parliament remaining in office until the first sitting of its successor. It is incompatible with membership of the Parliament to be a member of, or employed by, certain EU institutions or to be a member of the Government of a member state. Further incompatibilities may be laid down in national law. Membership of the Parliament is not incompatible with membership of a national parliament. No one may vote more than once in an election of representatives. The poll must be taken throughout the Union in the same Thursday to Sunday period in June every five years. Should it prove impossible to hold the election during this period, another period not more than one month before or after may be selected. The counting of votes may not begin until after the close of poll in the member state whose electors are last to vote. The Parliament verifies the credentials of representatives, taking note of the results declared officially by each member state. It is empowered to rule on any disputes arising out of the provisions of the Community Act but not on disputes arising out of national provisions. Each member state must lay down appropriate procedures for filling any seat which falls vacant during the five-year term of office of the Parliament. Pending the entry into force of a uniform electoral procedure to the Parliament, and subject to the other provisions of the Community Act, the electoral procedure is to be governed in each member state by its national provisions.

Article 138 (3) of the European Treaty, as amended by the Maastricht Treaty, provides for elections to the Parliament to be conducted in accordance with a uniform procedure in all member states on the basis of proposals drawn up by the Parliament. No such procedure has been introduced to date. This issue has arisen in the negotiations leading up to the Intergovernmental Conference but it cannot be said at this stage whether such a procedure will be in place for the next elections due in 1999. Nor is it certain that such a procedure would necessarily involve changing our system. A uniform procedure is likely to involve some kind of proportional representation system, but the Treaty would not appear to rule out some discretion regarding the detail of the PR system to be adopted by individual member states. The Bill, therefore, provides for our existing PR-STV electoral system.

The Maastricht Treaty inserted a provision in the European Treaty that citizens of the Union have the right to vote and stand as candidates at European elections in their member state of residence. The detailed arrangements for the exercise of these rights were set out in a 1993 Council Directive which was transposed into Irish law by the European Parliament Elections (Voting and Candidature) Regulations, 1994. The provision of these regulations are incorporated in the Bill.

Resident EU citizens have had the right to vote at European elections in Ireland since the first direct elections in 1979. Under the 1993 directive, European electors included on the register for the 1994 elections are exempt from the new administrative requirements imposed by the directive. Furthermore, in recognition of the fact that Ireland and the United Kingdom extend reciprocal voting rights to each other's citizens at national Parliament elections, there is a derogation from the directive for Irish citizens living in the UK and British citizens living in Ireland. The major change arising from the directive was the extension to resident EU citizens of the right to stand for election in Ireland to the European Parliament. Overall, the directive has not had a significant impact on our registration and electoral arrangements and there is no indication that the review of the directive, to be undertaken before the next elections in 1999, will require any significant change in Irish procedures.

While the Bill is essentially a consolidation measure, designed to restate existing law in a more convenient form and in a clearer idiom, it also contains a number of changes to bring the provisions into line with corresponding provisions in Dáil electoral law. I will now detail the principal changes.

The Bill omits the former provision for the office of chief returning officer and transfers the functions to the Clerk of the Dáil and to the Minister. Originally this office was envisaged as the link at national level between the Parliament and the individual constituencies. In practice, communication with the Parliament has tended to be via the Dáil, and the chief returning officer's role has consisted mainly of furnishing a return of representatives elected in such constituencies and the retention of election documents. The Bill assigns these functions to the Clerk of the Dáil, who already has a substantive role in relation to the filling of casual vacancies. Other aspects of the chief returning officer's role are assigned by the Bill to the Minister, for example, certifying that Irish citizens wishing to stand for election in another member state are not disqualified under Irish law.

The law in relation to questioning an election by way of petition is being brought into line with petition procedures in other electoral codes. In the existing European code, a petition must be presented within 28 days of the declaration of the result. The Bill provides that a petition may only be presented with the leave of the High Court which must be sought within seven days of the declaration of the result. Furthermore, the petition itself must be presented within three days of the grant of leave by the court. The objective of these changes is to provide an adequate opportunity for challenging the result of an election while, at the same time, limiting the period during which there may be any uncertainty about the election result.

Under existing law, a person who holds office as Attorney General cannot stand for election to the European Parliament without resigning from that office. This is in contrast to the position of Ministers of State who may stand for election while retaining their positions. In view of the fact that the Attorney General is not a member of the Government, there is no justification for treating the two types of office holder differently. The Bill will bring the post of Attorney General into line with that of a Minister of State by permitting the office holder to stand for election while providing that, if elected to the Parliament, he or she will automatically cease to hold the office of Attorney General. This amendment is proposed solely to eliminate an existing legal anomaly, and not at the behest of the present distinguished holder of the office of the Attorney General or because he has indicated any intention of standing for election to the Parliament in the future.

The Bill effects a number of other changes which, while minor in themselves, together constitute worthwhile improvements in the European Parliament election code. Examples of the kind of change involved include dropping the requirement of ministerial consent for the appointment of deputy local returning officers and making provision for the possibility — admittedly very remote — that insufficient candidates might be nominated to fill all the seats for a constituency.

Mr. Dempsey

That will be the day.

Mr. Allen

As I indicated above, the Bill includes changes to bring the European Parliament election code into line, as far as practicable, with the Dáil election code. These changes include refunding the deposit to candidates whose votes exceed one-quarter of the quota, rather than one-third as at present. The ballot paper is being brought into line with the Dáil ballot paper. It will permit references to a candidate's European political grouping and to the relevant replacement candidates list. The period for retention of election documents is being reduced from 12 to six months and monetary penalties are being increased in line with similar penalties in the Dáil election code.

The Bill re-enacts the existing European Parliament constituencies, each with the same number of seats recommended by an independent commission and used for the 1994 elections. These constituencies are four seaters in Dublin city and county, in the rest of Leinster and in Munster, and a three seater in Connacht/Ulster. Under the terms of the Electoral Bill, 1994, an independent commission would be established on the publication of the final results of each census with the task of making a report within six months on the formation of Dáil and European Parliament constituencies. The terms of reference for the commission set out in that Bill are essentially the same as those given to previous non-statutory commissions. The present Bill provides that the Minister must submit proposals to the Oireachtas for a review of European constituencies by 1 December 2003 at the latest, and at least once every ten years thereafter.

The Bill contains 22 sections and four schedules. The First Schedule lists the enactments repealed and the regulations revoked by the Bill. The Second Schedule comprises 150 detailed rules dealing with all aspects of the elections. The Third Schedule defines the four European constituencies and the Fourth Schedule specifies the format of the ballot paper.

I will now outline the main provisions in the sections of the Bill. Sections 1 to 5 contain the usual technical provisions relating to short title, commencement, definitions, power to make regulations, expenses of the Minister and repeal of enactments. Section 6 of the Bill implements the provisions of a 1993 Council Directive in relation to the registration as European electors of nationals of other member states ordinarily resident in the State. The section provides that such nationals must apply to be registered and furnish a statutory declaration in support of their application. It also provides for information exchange between member states in relation to electors so registered, with a view to preventing double voting. In accordance with the provisions of the directive, these requirements will not apply to European Union citizens registered as European electors in the 1994-5 register of electors or to British citizens living in the State.

Section 7 provides that elections to the Parliament will be held according to the principle of proportional representation, each elector having a single transferable vote. Voting will be by secret ballot.

Section 8 provides that every person whose name is on the register of European electors in a constituency will be entitled to vote at an election to the Parliament in that constituency.

Section 9 specifies that electors may vote in person at the polling station, by post or, in the case of electors with disabilities, by means of special arrangement for voting at home.

Section 10 enables the Minister to fix the polling day, the hours of polling and the date and time for the commencement of the count.

Section 11 restates the law in relation to eligibility for election to and membership of the Parliament. It also implements the provisions of the 1993 Council Directive in relation to nationals of other member states ordinarily resident in the State standing for election to the Parliament here. Thus, it provides that a person who has reached 21 years of age and is either an Irish citizen or a national of another member state ordinarily resident in the State is eligible to stand for election to the Parliament, to be nominated as a replacement candidate and to be a member of the Parliament. However, a person is not eligible if subject to certain disqualifications applicable to members of the Dáil. It follows that a person is disqualified if a member of the Garda Síochána or a whole-time member of the Defence Forces or a civil servant whose terms of employment do not expressly permit membership of the Parliament. Persons of unsound mind, undischarged bankrupts and persons undergoing prison sentences exceeding six months are also disqualified. Judges and the Comptroller and Auditor General are disqualified, unless they resign their positions. Other persons disqualified are Irish citizens standing for election in another member state and nationals of other member states deprived of the right to stand for election in their home member state.

Section 11 also provides that, if elected to the Parliament, the Attorney General, the chairman and deputy chairman of the Dáil or Seanad and Ministers of State cease to hold those offices. Furthermore, if a member of the Parliament becomes subject to any of the above disqualifications or becomes a holder of any of the above offices, he or she thereupon ceases to be a member of the Parliament.

In compliance with the 1993 Council Directive, section 11 also provides for the issue of an attestation by the Minister that an Irish citizen living in a member state other than the UK who proposes to stand for election in that State has not been deprived of the right to stand for election in Ireland.

Under section 12, a person may nominate himself or herself as a candidate at the Parliament election or may, with his or her consent, be nominated by a European elector for the constituency concerned. The section also provides that each registered political party and each non party candidate in a constituency may nominate one or more replacement candidates for the purpose of filling vacancies in the membership of the Parliament for that constituency.

Section 13 stipulates that a deposit of £1,000 must be lodged by or on behalf of each candidate before the close of nominations. This is the same as at present.

Section 14 applies the provisions in the Second Schedule to the conduct of European elections. These relate to the nomination of candidates, taking the poll, counting the votes, electoral offences, etc.

Section 15 and the Third Schedule prescribe the constituencies for the European elections. The section also provides for submission of proposals to the Oireachtas for a review of European Parliament constituencies. This must be done by the Minister for the Environment by 1 December, 2003 and at least once every ten years thereafter. The Minister must take account of any report of a statutory commission recommending the revision of European constituencies.

Section 16 provides that there will be a returning officer for each European constituency appointed by the Minister from among the local returning officers in each constituency. The returning officers is responsible for functions which must be discharged centrally in each constituency, for example, the receipt of nominations, counting the votes and declaring the results of the election.

Section 17 provides that there shall be a local returning officer for each county or county borough contained in the constituency. The local returning officers are the city and county sheriffs in the case of Dublin and Cork and the county registrars in every other case. The local returning officer is responsible for taking the poll and verifying the ballot paper accounts in the county or county borough and making all the arrangements necessary for this purpose, for example, providing polling stations and appointing presiding officers.

Section 18 provides for the payment by the Minister for Finance from the Central Fund of the reasonable election expenses of returning officers and local returning officers. It clarifies the position that any damages and costs incurred by returning officers or local returning officers in court proceedings (including personal injury cases) shall be paid from the Central Fund.

Section 19 provides for the filling of casual vacancies in Ireland's representation in the Parliament in accordance with Part 13 of the Second Schedule. A vacancy is filled by the replacement candidate whose name stands highest on the replacement candidate list of the political party or the non-party candidate concerned. A replacement candidate will not be eligible to fill a casual vacancy if he or she is already a member of the Parliament, is not eligible to be elected, is not willing to serve as a member or, in the case of a party list, is no longer a member of the party concerned. If no replacement candidates list has been presented or the relevant list is exhausted, the Dáil may select a replacement from another replacement candidates list presented for the constituency concerned.

Section 20 provides that ballot papers and other confidential documents relating to a European election may be inspected only under an order of the High Court. Such an order may be made only where the documents are required for the purposes of an election petition or for the prosecution of electoral offences.

Section 21 and Part 15 of the Second Schedule specify the procedure for questioning a European election by way of petition to the High Court. Leave of the High Court to present a petition must be sought within seven days of the declaration of the election result. The Director of Public Prosecutions and any person registered as a European elector may apply for leave to present an election petition. The petition must be presented within three days of the grant of leave by the court and must be accompanied by a security for costs of £5,000 unless the court sees fit to reduce the security. The grounds of petition are limited to specific factors likely to have affected the result of the election. These are: want of eligibility of candidates, electoral offences, obstruction of the election, irregularity or failure to conduct the election in accordance with law. The court will, if possible, determine the result of the election and, if it cannot do so, will declare whole or part of the election void, giving its reasons. Where the court declares that the whole or part of the election is void, a fresh election must be held unless a general election of representatives to the Parliament is due within six months. The decision of the High Court on a petition is final, subject only to appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law.

Section 22 provides that no person may be required in any legal proceedings to state how he or she voted.

The Second Schedule contains 16 parts, comprising 150 detailed rules for the conduct of the European Parliament elections, for filling casual vacancies and for dealing with election petitions. The rules are listed on pages 16 to 22 of the Bill and are summarised in the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill.

This Bill is a solid and worthwhile piece of consolidation law, incorporating a number of changes designed largely to harmonise with the up-to-date Dáil election procedures. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Dempsey

On behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party I welcome the thrust of this Bill. It is consolidation legislation and is probably long overdue. The first Act relating to elections to the European Assembly was enacted in 1977 and there have been a number of Acts since then. Anything that makes the electoral system clearer and brings it closer to the citizens is a good thing. It is desirable that the rules and regulations for different elections be standardised.

It is appropriate that this Bill should be brought forward during our Presidency of the EU. It removes the differences in our legislation between domestic elections and elections to the European Parliament.

The problem of getting people interested in the European Parliament, and of getting them sufficiently interested to vote in such elections, is growing and needs to be addressed. In a small way the Bill addresses that issue and helps to standardise procedures. The provisions regarding the candidate's deposit, eligibility to qualify as a candidate, ballot paper formats, retention of election documents and so on which have been brought into line with the Dáil elections make for a uniform and a more easily understandable democratic system for all our citizens. That is important because in the past we have heard of a democratic deficit in the EU generally. The Parliament is probably the one body we can use to reduce the democratic imbalance and this Bill will go a small way towards doing that.

The Parliament is accountable. The Commission is not accountable in the European Union in the same way. As the Government is now painfully learning, public representatives and institutions which acquire a veil of secrecy automatically undermine public support and confidence in the organisation whether of Government or Parliament. In the interests of our country we, as parliamentarians, must highlight the potential role of the European Parliament because it remains remote and unfamiliar to the majority of the European electorate. The reduced number of people who participate in European elections is a symptom of that.

While acknowledging the importance of the European Parliament in redressing the democratic deficit in European institutions generally most of the parliament's reports and resolutions are prepared by one of its 20 committees. These are then debated and adopted when the Parliament meets one week per month in Strasbourg. In general the committees meet in Brussels and the secretariat is based in Luxembourg. The perception of citizens all over Europe looking at this structure of separation — where meetings are held in one place and the secretariat is in another — is one of disorganised and expensive public representation. The institution that makes some decisions on behalf of the citizens of Europe cannot make a decision on where its headquarters will be based. That is a long-standing debate within the European Union and is one that should be finalised without delay. Is it any wonder citizens are cynical about what the Parliament might or might not decide when they are still wandering around Europe?

Unlike other areas of Community law where the Commission has the right of initiative in proposing reform, the European Parliament has the right to decide on the electoral system. It is time the Parliament made that decision in relation to a common electoral system for European Union elections. A uniform electoral system would be the political equivalent of monetary union which we are facing into in the next few years. A unified system would have the effect of bringing people together. The system does not have to be exactly the same but the overall electoral system should be the same no matter in what country the election takes place. A system based on proportional representation but incorporating a list system is probably the one that would be generally accepted throughout Europe and would be the most palatable not only for the citizens of Europe but for those who contest the elections.

The Minister referred to the Attorney General in the event of his being elected to the Parliament. I did not think the Attorney General, worthy as he is, would be interested in the European Parliament. After he has completed his duty and taken a cut in salary in the public service as Attorney General, he would find it more lucrative to go back to the Bar. However, the move in the Bill is a good one. In passing we should pay tribute, even though they may not have been the most popular people in Government in the past ten or 12 years, to those who accepted positions as Attorneys General. In general, they accept such positions in the interest of the public service and do a good job for less pay than they would earn in the private sector.

That brings us to the contentious issue of the dual mandate. There are Members on the Government side, not in the Minister's party, who are more familiar with this than we are. For example, the Minister for Social Welfare, who knows all about double representation, spent some time in this House at it. We should examine the question of the dual mandate. Ministers and Ministers of State automatically lose their positions if they successfully contest a European election. While membership of a national Parliament is not incompatible with membership of the European Parliament, we should look at a change which would allow Members of this Parliament stand for election to the European Parliament but they would have to decide which body they wish to be a Member of no later than the next election to either body. They should not be able to retain the dual mandate indefinitely. Perhaps the Minister could table some amendments to that effect.

In regard to the section which proposes to omit the position of chief returning officer and give the job to the Clerk of the Dáil and the Minister in certain cases, I note what the Minister said but I have reservations about it. Other Members and staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas might have similar reservations. When I was Government Whip I had great difficulty trying to arrange accommodation for Deputies. Deputy Quill could say more about that because her party's offices are on the other side of Kildare Street and they have been trying for some time to get accommodation in the Leinster House complex. Accommodation and space are very scarce here and I have reservations about the logistics of retaining ballot papers for the European elections in Leinster House close to the office of the Clerk of the Dáil.

I also have reservations, to which I will return on Committee Stage, about the alleged close working relationship between the Dáil and the European Parliament which the Minister said will allow for a smooth transfer. I do not think there are any substantive links between the European Parliament and the Dáil which would lead to a smooth transfer. I will elaborate on Committee Stage as to why that might not be a good idea.

The European elections are not covered by our Constitution but Dáil and Seanad elections are. This Bill gives the Minister an opportunity to try an experiment in relation to electoral reform. There has been a great deal of talk over the last two or three months about the number of long serving senior Members who are retiring and there has been a fair amount of analysis of it in the newspapers. I have often criticised newspapers and other media but most of the articles written about this matter have been fair and reasonably balanced. Newspapers, in particular, have made a reasonable effort to look at the other side of the story in relation to the workload of TDs and Senators. We are all familiar with the caricature which is dragged out ad nauseam that we only work for 30 weeks or have six months holidays. However, the media have made a reasonable effort to understand the reasons so many Members are retiring from the House and to analyse the amount of work done by TDs.

However, there has not been much focus on the electoral system and the huge burden which it places on Members of the House. The electoral system has to be changed as we approach the 21st century. All sides of the House talk at various times about the irrelevance of the House, although one talks more about that when one is in Opposition. However, any group of TDs speaking in general terms about their role and that of Parliament, which is to scrutinise the actions of Government and to prepare and examine legislation, would say the electoral system mitigates against a good form of parliamentary democracy. Our electoral system works against the best interests of Members of Parliament and the public who elect us to scrutinise the actions of Government and to ensure Government is representative of the people.

The Constitution Review Group has examined this matter but has fudged the issue to a certain extent. It is time to change our electoral system. We should retain proportional representation, which is a very important element mentioned in the Constitution. We should ask the people to endorse single seat constituencies, proportional representation and a list system element which would allow for an effective Parliament. Under such a system not every Member would be elected from a list decided on by the party; the people would have to decide on a substantial proportion of Members. However, a list system element would allow people with particular expertise to be Members, which would improve standards in the House. Our parliamentary assembly is based on the Westminster model which was based, in turn, on a colonial system with a mother Parliament and various colonies. In the 1920s we modelled ourselves on that system which should have been done away with in the last century. We are almost into the next century and it should be changed.

There has always been a fear that smaller parties would suffer under such a system. However, in the last seven or eight by-elections — which are, in effect, single seat PR elections — candidates from smaller parties and independent candidates were generally returned. Given that 60 per cent of the electorate say they are not aligned to any party, smaller parties will not lose out under such a system. People elect candidates on the basis of their policies and not because of what parties stood for in the 1920s or 1930s.

The Constitution Review Group looked at the systems in operation in Germany, France and New Zealand. When it applied the list system or a combination of the list system plus direct elections it found that the results in terms of the number of seats for each of the parties, even the smaller ones, was almost the same as those in the elections held over the past 20 or 30 years. We should give serious consideration to the adoption of one of these systems. European Parliament and local elections provide an ideal opportunity to experiment with these systems to see whether they would work here.

Consideration must be given to the level of public interest in the role of the European Parliament. The average turnout in European elections throughout Europe declined from 62.5 per cent in 1979 to 57 per cent in 1989. The turnout in each country has varied considerably and it is heartening to note that there was an increase in the turnout in Ireland in the 1989 elections. The European Parliament must do more to improve its image and ensure that more information is given to the public. This needs to be done urgently as otherwise there will be an increasing lack of interest in the Parliament.

The Minister referred to the independent commission, for which provision is made in the Electoral Bill, 1994. This Bill has got bogged down for one reason or another and if I was cynical I would say it is because Fine Gael wants to complete its fund-raising before it is implemented. While the McKenna judgment has given rise to problems, it does not affect the provisions dealing with the independent commission. There is absolutely no excuse for the delay in setting up the independent commission. Will the Minister bring the sections on the independent commission before the House so that they can be discussed and the commission can be set up without delay? Changes are needed and it is important that the setting up of the independent commission is not delayed indefinitely because of the McKenna judgment or other reasons.

Under section 15 the Minister must take account of the independent commission. It is important that the commission and its members are independent. The commission must be allowed to make its report, which must be implemented. There is no point in setting up independent commissions if Ministers can change them.

I welcome the Bill. I do not anticipate that there will be many Committee Stage amendments, but I put down a marker on the section dealing with the chief returning officer and his functions.

Miss Quill

I welcome the Bill. It proposes minor electoral reform and deserves to be supported. The Bill seeks to harmonise electoral systems between member states and it is important that this is done.

I do not wish to delay the enactment of the legislation, but I confess I found it extremely difficult to be enthusiastic about its content. The reality is that this House has no influence on the European Parliament. The IFA has more influence in Europe than this sovereign elected Parliament, while county councils have more and better access to the Parliament and more clout in Brussels. I very much wish we were debating major reforming legislation on the workings of the European Parliament, the relationships which should exist between the Parliament and national parliaments and the relationship between parliaments, the Commission and the Council of Ministers. That is the type of debate about which I could be enthusiastic and it is a pity we are not having it today.

This House does not have an input to the formulation of EU directives. Draft directives are not considered by this House or any of its committees; rather they are presented to us in final form and we have to fit them into Irish law, regardless of whether they suit us. This is a major element of the overall democratic deficit to which we frequently refer but which we do not seem to be able to confront or tackle.

It is very difficult to establish what is discussed by our representatives on the Council of Ministers as there is no consultation with this House either before or after meetings. I am not exaggerating when I say that this House might as well not exist in so far as the European Parliament is concerned. This is a great pity and it is a matter which should be addressed.

There should be major structural reform of all institutions, including not only this Parliament but local government. This issue will have to be confronted by a future Government because it will not be confronted by the Government at this stage of its lifetime when we are approaching an election. The kind of reforms that cry out for implementation ought to be undertaken in the first year of a new Government.

The elections in the USA this week had no meaning for almost 50 per cent of the electorate, who did not vote. This should be a warning to us because the attitude it reveals is beginning to occur in other western democracies, including ours. Citizens are beginning to lose interest in and contact with their democratic institutions. They are starting to believe such institutions do not represent them or their interests and, as such, have no meaning for them.

We are less than four years away from the turn of the century. This is the first century in which we had our own national institutions, our own Free State, our own Republic. There was much enthusiasm and idealism in the early days of our freedom. This is now beginning to give way to cynicism. One of the consequences is that fewer people vote at elections. An even greater number of people may stay away from the polls at the next election.

We must confront this development. However, we can only curb it if we make our institutions more responsive to people's needs and interests and more relevant and immediate to the issues of the day. The older institutions have become big and bloated and are slow to respond. The Government is one of the biggest since the foundation of the State. In addition to the 15 Cabinet Ministers there are 17 Ministers of State, each with a programme manager, civil servants and other such staff who have crept into politics in recent times.

These developments have not made Government more responsive to the needs of the people, as the evidence indicates. For example, the tribunal of inquiry into the hepatitis C scandal, one of the biggest scandals of my lifetime in politics, would not have been established if Mrs. McCole had not died. It only happened as a reaction to that event, not as a point of policy or principle. Similarly, the bail referendum would not have been organised had Veronica Guerin not been murdered, and the food advisory board was only established because of the Government's reaction to events. It is unlikely that the board would have been established if Russia had not put a partial ban on our beef. My party argued for its establishment last March.

Smaller, not bigger, Government is better Government. There are a number of bloated institutions, both here and in the EU, which must be tackled in a systematic way. We need to fit our institutions into the times in which we live. Deputy Dempsey correctly stated that we inherited a 19th century system from the British. However, we have failed to reform and adapt it to the conditions of the modern world of rapid communication, advanced technology and growing, and in many cases harrowing, social problems.

Adapting our institutions to meet these challenges will only happen if we institute root and branch reform of each of them, including the relationship that exists between them at EU, national and local level. Ultimately, their purpose is to serve our citizens and the best interests of democracy. They are not doing this satisfactorily at present.

The European Parliament is far removed from the interests or concern of the normal citizen. It can only be made more meaningful if the national Parliament can forge better and closer links with it. This is the kind of reform we should debate this morning. I was an enthusiastic European in the early days when I believed democracy would work upwards and downwards and that we would work towards a major root and branch reform of local government. This has not happened.

We have talked about local government reform. All parties, including mine, have developed policy priorities but we have failed to introduce and implement them. There is great potential here to create a genuine democracy. We must start from the ground up and devolve real powers to local government. In addition, we must give local government function and control of its finances. The two must go side by side because it is pointless to have function if there is no finance. This will not be easy because any change in taxation brings electoral risks. People grumble about the current system of taxation, yet often the public does not accept change.

However, public acceptance could be obtained if we demonstrated that we were changing the taxation and funding base of local government in the context of genuine local government reform. We would get much more public support if we demonstrated that it would get value for the money and taxation it provides. The longer we delay this type of comprehensive root and branch reform of our institutions, the more we run the risk of people being cynical about politicians and fewer people voting at election time. We should not run that risk any longer.

We are close to the turn of the century. Local government will be 100 years old next year and it would be a suitable time to put in place a proper system of local government under which we would be willing to devolve some of our powers to locally elected representatives who function at local level. Democracy has been starved in many ways. City mayors should be elected by the people. City and county managers should also be elected by the people with a fixed term of office. That would greatly reinforce democracy.

The Government should proceed apace with the reform I have sought this morning. Even if it cannot pursue it to finality in its time in office, it should at least try to get something off the ground and cease publishing reams of reports so that in a few years' time we will have nourished our starving democratic institutions and have put in place a workable system between members of the European Parliament, the national Parliament, of which I am proud to be a Member, and local authorities.

I listened with interest to Deputy Dempsey's comments on our electoral system and the type of candidates who are prepared to put themselves forward for politics. It is regrettable that increasingly large numbers of young people do not consider politics an attractive option. They see the lifestyles politicians lead and the return they get for their heavy workloads and decide it is not the type of life they want to lead. When I was younger people regarded it a great privilege to serve their country as politicians. That attitude has changed because young people believe there are better ways of serving their country. This is true, in particular, of women involved in community and family support groups who do practical worthwhile work which makes a long-term difference to the families in their communities. They find this type of work much more fulfilling and would not dream of offering themselves for election. This is how democracy stands near the end of the century. We should endeavour to get all-party support for remedying the matters I outlined.

I do not envisage my party tabling a substantial number of amendments on Committee Stage because the Bill achieves what it set out to address. It is vague, however, on the question of the dual mandate. I believe it is accepted by all parties that those who are members of this House and the European Parliament should be required to relinquish one of those seats at the next election. They should not continue to hold a dual mandate. If a European election is held mid term they should be encouraged to make a choice one way or the other at the next general election. No man can serve two masters. It is not possible to serve both Parliaments in a satisfactory manner. This matter should have been dealt with more fully in the Bill and I may table an amendment in that regard on Committee Stage.

The Minister of State and Deputy Dempsey referred to the machinery involved in holding elections. I do not find fault with anything proposed under that heading in the Bill. The counting system is cumbersome and proportional representation means it takes a long time to count votes. I pay tribute to the staff who carry out that tedious job. As recounts demonstrate, counting is always done in a painstaking manner. When a recount takes place there is generally little difference between the first and second counts. It is unacceptable that if we hold European elections mid week we must wait until the elections are held in other member states, two or three days later, before publishing the results. While I do not have a prescription for remedying the problem the Minister should examine how we could synchronise our polling day for European elections with that in other member states. It is extremely frustrating to know the results, but not be able to announce them until the elections are held in other member states.

We should find out if there is consensus for holding elections on a Sunday and if it would mean a higher poll, we should consider holding them on that day. My party supports the Bill.

Mr. Ferris

The Minister dealt with the question of why it was necessary to introduce the Bill. It consolidates existing legislation, which Members on all sides support. Members have made some thoughtful contributions. I do not disagree with much of what Deputy Dempsey said, particularly in regard to examining the question of the dual mandate. However, it was unfair of him to single out the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, in terms of the dual mandate. He gave up his seat in the European Parliament when it was possible for him to continue to hold it, unlike some members of Fianna Fáil who continue to hold dual mandates. Deputy Quill also mentioned this matter. When a member of her party resigned the dual mandate, the party lost a seat at the subsequent by-election.

However, if we agree on one matter, it is that it is almost impossible to get elected to the European Parliament unless one has, in advance, an excellent forum to put one's name before the people. This Parliament is probably one such institution. I agree that once a person is elected to either body they should decide at the next available opportunity, probably the next election to either body, where their loyalty lies. It is not possible to serve two masters properly and adequately. It is inappropriate that salaries are paid for two positions when it is not possible to carry out both adequately at the same time. We often criticise various systems in the United Kingdom but it decided it was inappropriate to pay double salaries to people who hold dual positions.

The Bill addresses some of the fundamental problems in terms of trying to bring together existing legislation. It also addresses the position of people who may be eligible to contest elections. It is appropriate that the legislation states that holding the office of the Attorney General will not preclude somebody from offering himself or herself for election. The basic point in any democracy is that if one has a view, one should present oneself to the people for election and allow them to express an opinion.

It is a pity the electoral process is not covered in the Bill. Some of Deputy Dempsey's views in that regard are interesting and worthy of consideration but they would involve constitutional amendments. Deputy Quill made an important point that she and many other Deputies feel there is a democratic deficit at national level between the Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament at national level and the European institutions, including the Commission and the Council of Ministers. Many Members feel they are removed from these bodies and this creates a democratic deficit. If Deputies hold this view, we should understand the frustration at times of ordinary citizens about how far they are removed except when a decision is made which affects their livelihood or future.

Deputy Quill and others should examine a report published by the Joint Committee on European Affairs which was laid before the House last June. It identified this problem and suggested solutions to it. Deputy Quill obviously has not read the report — I do not expect Members to read everything which is placed in their pigeon holes — but it identified some areas which the committee considered were of relevance to the Oireachtas in general. For example, section 2 of the report mentions that the Joint Committee on European Affairs represents the Dáil and comprises members of all parties. It states that Members of the European Parliament, elected from constituencies in Ireland, including the North of Ireland, and members of the Irish delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe may attend meetings of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs and its sub-committees. It also states that MEPs from other countries may, at the invitation of the committee or any of its sub-committees, attend and participate in meetings.

MEPs and members of the Council of Europe attend meetings of my committee and it is an important forum for them. They were elected to serve in Europe and are members of a committee system there which does not always attract proper media coverage. The Joint Committee on European Affairs provides a forum in which people can express views and report on their work in the European committees. MEPs have taken this opportunity but their work in Europe means their diaries are full and it is not always possible for them to attend. This confirms my opinion about a dual mandate. However, the committee has tried to facilitate them by meeting on Fridays. The attendance is sometimes disappointing but we try to ensure that MEPs have a forum in their country.

The committee report also suggested many ways to improve a wide range of links between national parliaments, the European Parliament and European institutions. For example, the report mentioned the declaration which is in place following the Maastricht Treaty. We supported this in principle and I will deal with this matter in more detail later. Section 8 of the report states that the committee is satisfied that the current scrutiny provisions in place are adequate if properly adhered to and that this allows the Oireachtas to examine proposed Community legislation. However, the report also states that the committee believes that a more structured and expanded programme of scrutiny should be undertaken. To this end, certain legislative texts should be examined by the committee in consultation with the Minister prior to consideration by the Council of Ministers. The committee ensures that Ministers address it on important national issues. Ministers have appeared before they attended important meetings and have reported the outcome of these to the committee. However, this structure should be dramatically strengthened.

I am pleased with the Bill because it helps to consolidate legislation relating to elections to the European Parliament. While it is important in that regard, other important work remains to be done in the Union in terms of consolidating treaties and legislation in order to rationalise and simplify the European Union for all its citizens. It has been recognised in every member state, and particularly by national parliaments, that the EU is running a democratic deficit. Citizens are sometimes confused about what the Union is doing on their behalf. There is a remoteness about the system which sometimes creates barriers for citizens. Action must be taken to break down these barriers and to humanise the Union to make it more accessible. It is generally accepted now that measures must be taken to bring this about.

The Intergovernmental Conference, of which Ireland is the current President, is, among other matters, examining this issue. The Minister referred to the Maastricht Treaty. The European heads of government and the Commission have given Ireland the responsibility of preparing a draft treaty for consideration before the end of the Intergovernmental Conference under the Dutch Presidency. The Intergovernmental Conference meets on a weekly basis and Ireland as the current EU President is always represented. The conference has decided that making Europe more relevant to its citizens is a prime task of the Union.

The Intergovernmental Conference must suggest a way to make the Union more accountable and transparent to the citizens of Europe. That may prove to be the most important area of the work of the Intergovernmental Conference. Despite its responsibilities with regard to structural changes, the number of members of national parliaments and of the European Parliament, the number of Commissioners and so on we should not allow some of the institutions of benefit to small nations to be eroded by enlargement. Enlargement is something to which we have aspired because it is the concept of Europe, but we must not by encouraging it concede some of the benefits gained.

A major problem for the Union is that over the years it has not only grown away from the ordinary citizen but also from national parliaments. It is incumbent on national parliaments, the initial representatives of citizens, to be informed on the activities of the Union and to scrutinise the legislation before it is enacted. This legislation will have to be observed by all member states.

Among the issues being considered by the Intergovernmental Conference regarding transparency is that the role of national parliaments should be reinforced by amending the Treaty and-or adopting a code of conduct to ensure that the Commission and the Council of Ministers conduct their work to facilitate national parliaments. In that regard Declaration 13 of the Maastricht Treaty states:

The Conference considers that it is important to encourage greater involvement of national parliaments in the activities of the European Union.

To this end the exchange of information between national parliaments and the European Parliament should be stepped up. In this context, the governments of the Member States will ensure, inter alia, that national parliaments receive Commission proposals for legislation in good time for information or possible examination.

Similarly, the Conference considers that it is important for contacts between the national parliaments and the European Parliament to be stepped up, in particular through the granting of appropriate reciprocal facilities and regular meetings between members of Parliament....

The number of such meetings on relevant issues should be increased. That declaration is not included in the Maastricht Treaty but is attached to it as a type of Protocol. Although it was a commendation to national parliaments to consult governments, in practice, since Maastricht — with some notable exceptions which does not include our Government — very little consultation has taken place. There are some encouraging signs that member states have a consultation procedure, but because it was not a Treaty obligation some member states reneged on their commitment to consult the Parliament.

Declaration 13 refers to the importance of encouraging greater involvement between the Parliament, the Union and national governments and say the Parliament should ensure that national parliaments not only receive the proposed legislation, but would receive it in good time, not less than four weeks in advance of its proposed debate by the Council of Ministers. Proposed legislation should be available in the languages of all member states to facilitate its proper examination.

During our Presidency we chaired meetings of committees of European affairs on behalf of the Oireachtas and hosted the 15th international conference, COSAC, in Dublin Castle on 15-16 October last. COSAC is a conference of the parliaments of Europe, specialising in European Affairs and involving the elected European Parliament. I am proud our Presidency was the first to achieve a unanimous conclusion at that COSAC meeting which makes that body of some significance within the structures addressing the democratic deficit between the Parliament and governments of member states.

I will quote some points of the conclusion because they are important. In the European Union national parliaments have a role to play to strengthen democracy and improve the efficiency of the Union. It is appropriate that the flow of information from the Union institutions to the national parliaments be improved and national parliaments should have control over the decisions of their respective governments taking into account the constitutional restraints that may apply to some member states.

To that end COSAC holds that Declaration 13 should be reinforced by the Intergovernmental Conference by including it in the Treaty to make it obligatory on the governments of member states to follow through on their commitments under it, so that national parliaments will have an appropriate time to examine legislative procedures. In that regard there is a procedure in place. I hope following the COSAC meeting, if the declaration is included in the Maastricht Treaty all member governments, including ours, will be obliged, as are the governments of Finland, Denmark, Sweden and many other countries, to consult the Parliament through their special committees of European affairs thereby providing an opportunity to discuss all proposed legislation. Apart from our obligation under the Treaty to examine directives and their implications for Irish legislation, we need an opportunity, such as that provided for under the declaration, to participate fully in the preparation of legislation without having a veto on the Minister. We should have an input on behalf of national institutions, the Dáil and Seanad, as our committee represents both Houses. I hope the consensus achieved during our Presidency will help strengthen us to address the deficit between all our institutions and the European Parliament, the subject matter of this legislation.

Mr. E. Ryan

I, like other Members, welcome the introduction of this Bill. There have been approximately four elections in 20 years since our first European election. This Bill is tidying up legislation in the electoral area. Elections are difficult, particularly for Members of this House and their families. We should try, therefore, to minimise the pain we have to endure during those difficult periods.

The issue of Sunday voting has been raised by a number of speakers. Many of us have had the opportunity to act as international observers at elections in various countries. I have acted in this capacity on three occasions and found it extremely stimulating and interesting. If I was told that voting would take place on a Thursday, that the votes would not be counted until the Sunday and that the ballot boxes would remain in a shed in the intervening period, I would have to raise the question in my written report of whether such a system would be open to abuse.

While we provide assistance to the new democracies and help them to run elections in a free and fair manner, we allow a situation to continue here where the results of an election are not known for many days afterwards. From the point of view of the public but, more important, from the point of view of candidates, it is a torture to have to sit around and wait for the results. To make matters as simple as possible, people should be asked to vote on a Sunday, as happens in other European countries.

As those who stayed up and watched the results of the American presidential election come in are aware, the results in Florida were known before people in California had finished voting. That is ludicrous and an incredible abuse of the system. If the result was close, people in California who had no intention of voting could be influenced to go out and do so. This could result in a swing either way. I find it fascinating that they allow the results in one part of the country to be made known before people on the other side of the country finish voting. It is important that in the future people throughout Europe should vote on the same day with the votes being counted within a matter of hours so that candidates do not have a torturous wait for the results, as happened in one Dublin constituency in the last election.

Deputy Quill mentioned the expense of running for election to this House rather than the European Parliament — many people believe that Members of the European Parliament obtain a fair return. This matter, which has been raised by the many Members who will retire from politics at the next election, needs to be looked at. As all parties are aware, running for election to the Dáil has become an unattractive option for many people. Members of this House are not well paid and have to put in a huge number of hours to do the job properly. As Deputy Quill said, we will ignore this at our peril. There is a need to attract people of quality, particularly young people, to politics.

I am delighted that the Members who will retire from politics at the next election have raised this issue through the media. Many people commented on the radio interview given by the leader of my party, Deputy Bertie Ahern. They began to appreciate the work that we do for a poor return and the problems encountered in attracting people to the profession. Those in public life have to expect criticism and abuse but at times people go over the top. It has been mentioned in the media that all we do is sit around and take long holidays. This is grossly unfair and far from the truth. If one wants to be returned to Dáil Éireann and receive some satisfaction one has to put in a considerable number of hours each week.

The relevance of MEPs and the problems encountered by them in getting their message across were mentioned by a number of speakers. MEPs have said that they find it difficult to get the media to cover items discussed at European Parliament level, in particular reports compiled by various committees. Newspapers will not print articles about matters nobody wants to read about. There is, therefore, an information deficit. Most people are grateful for the money we receive from the European Union but they see this as the result of the efforts of the Government, not our MEPs. Because of a lack of interest, problems are encountered at election time in attracting a good turn-out.

MEPs of all parties work extremely hard and make a huge effort at committee level in Brussels and Strasbourg. They find it very frustrating when this merits only one or two lines in a newspaper or a brief report on radio. This contrasts with the time given for a discussion about the size of bottles in which whiskey may be sold, which is quite irrelevant. There are much more important matters being discussed at European Parliament level but they do not receive much coverage. RTE provides regular coverage but it is important to ensure that people are made aware of the importance of MEPs' work and go out and vote in greater numbers in European Parliament elections.

I note that the Attorney General will be eligible to stand for election to the European Parliament. The Minister stressed however that the present Attorney General has no intention of running either now or in the future.

Mrs. Doyle

There are a number of former Attorneys General who are unemployed.

Mr. E. Ryan

This may have been seen as an interesting compromise given the difficulties encountered by Attorneys General in the recent past.

Mrs. Doyle

Too little too late.

Dr. Upton

Is that the reason for the change?

Mr. E. Ryan

I am sure the previous Attorney General has no interest in running for election to the European Parliament as he was badly treated. He is extremely well qualified and a man of the highest integrity. The Minister said that under the Electoral Act, 1994, an independent commission must be set up as soon as possible after the last census to deal with the formation of Dáil and European constituencies. The last time we debated this matter I said that I cannot understand the way in which constituencies are drawn up. Two constituencies come to mind — I am sure Deputies could name others — which are badly drawn up, one of which is Mayo. It is difficult to service rural constituencies and to provide that Mayo is one constituency is ludicrous. The fact that Deputies must spend a great amount of time travelling throughout the constituency, particularly in dangerous conditions in winter, poses a threat to their safety. The issue was referred to by Members in that constituency. Anybody who visits Mayo will be aware of the difficulties involved in travelling through the county. Problems such as those should be taken on board when drawing up constituencies.

The other constituency that is badly drawn up is in the city of Dublin, the constituency of my party leader, Deputy Bertie Ahern. It is ludicrous that Dublin Central includes areas across the Liffey such as Ballyfermot, which has no relevance whatsoever to the north side of the city. Members in that constituency cannot understand how it was drawn up. Recently I spoke to Deputy Jim Mitchell who intends to retire from the Dáil after many good years of service to the House and the people of Dublin and he agreed that his constituency was very badly drawn up. The argument may be put forward that if one constituency is changed it would have a knock-on effect throughout the country, but there must be some cohesion in drawing up constituencies. There is nothing wrong with giving the commission greater flexibility but it should ensure that constituencies such as Mayo and Dublin Central are better drawn up. The present position is unfair to elected Members and to the people living in those areas because they are poorly serviced as a result of the lay-out of the constituencies.

It is timely that we tidy up existing legislation in this area and that European elections are put on a similar footing to local and national elections. The issue of Sunday voting should be considered. I have never been convinced that there is a real reason for not voting on Sunday, as is done in other countries in Europe. Candidates should not have to endure three days of torture over a weekend wondering whether they will be elected. I welcome the Bill which is long overdue.

Dr. Upton

I too welcome the Bill which tidies up electoral law and consolidates many of the practices which are working well. I agree with Deputy Ryan in regard to Sunday voting and it is desirable that we move in that direction. I also agree it is unacceptable that candidates must wait from Thursday evening until perhaps Monday morning to find out whether they will be elected. A certain group of candidates will be sure of their seats while another group will know there is not a hope of them being elected, but voting on Thursday presents a particular difficulty for the few for whom the results may go either way. It is undesirable that those people, their families and their supporters should have to endure the agony of waiting days for the results. There is no reason we should not introduce Sunday voting.

One of my main criticisms of the Bill is the failure to experiment and consider new ideas in regard to the political system. The European elections provide a unique opportunity to examine changes in politics. The opportunity has been missed in the Bill to provide that names are listed on ballot papers by random selection rather than in alphabetical order. I am sure Deputy Ryan will agree since his name is not far ahead of mine in terms of the alphabet. The findings of numerous surveys indicate that there is a built-in advantage for people whose names start with a letter near the top of the alphabet. There is a case to be made for changing the order in which people's names appear on the ballot paper and, without knowing very much about the law on these matters, I suspect there might even be a case for constitutional action if a person was enthusiastic enough and could afford to take such action.

I have no difficulty with the amount of the deposit — £1,000 is relatively reasonable given that funding is made available if a candidate gets more than 25 per cent of the quota. Considering the cost of contesting elections, if a person does not have the capacity to put up £1,000 he does not have much chance of winning.

The opportunity has also been lost in terms of including a photograph of candidates on the ballot paper. That proposal, which has been rejected time and again down the years, is well worth considering. Even if photographs were included on a once off basis it would give us an opportunity to see what the effect would be. It may be argued from a theoretical point of view that most people are literate, and that is true, but the reasons people vote for certain candidates vary. The inclusion of a photograph might improve the precision with which people cast their vote and would be particularly relevant in the case of candidates with the same surname.

The question of granting votes to emigrants has not been addressed to a great extent in the Bill and that is another opportunity lost. This is one area in which we could have experimented. The opportunity should have been taken to assess the extent to which emigrants wish to participate in the electoral process.

I am unsure whether constitutionally or according to European law it would be possible for Irish emigrants residing outside the EU to vote in this country in European elections but an opportunity has been lost. This should be examined and if it is not possible, then Irish citizens living in the EU opting to cast their votes in Ireland should be considered. There has been much discussion, including my own contribution to my party's position, in relation to granting votes to emigrants. Those on the other side of the argument mention the enormous numbers of emigrants who would then distort the Irish voting system by being included in it. We had an opportunity to experiment with this election and it is a pity it has not been considered more seriously.

It is worth looking at the size of the constituencies and the concept of Ireland as a fifteen-seat constituency rather than being broken up into four and five-seater constituencies. Why is the constitutional provision for a maximum constituency size of seven members not adhered to any more? That is worth re-examining as it would give fairer representation to smaller parties in particular. I accept that since the drawing of constituencies has been given to independent commissions the proportionality between percentages of parties in the Dáil and the share of the general vote is quite close with the exception of the very small parties who are excluded to some degree by the system.

I agree with Deputy Ryan's points on the difficulty of attracting capable candidates for election. That is becoming particularly evident in relation to the Dáil. Looking at the conditions of work and the general position of a Deputy as perceived by the public, there is constant criticism and harping on the awfulness of politicians. The term "politician" is now a term of abuse. Once it was a term of honour for someone who served their country and did their best. Now the connotation is that of a duplicitous low-grade crook. That is what is conjured up in the public mind by the term. That is a pity and to some extent it has been contributed to by politicians' behaviour, but there is no group of people without their deficiencies in behaviour or who could not be portrayed as knaves or charlatans if someone sets about doing so. There is a need to move away from this sustained criticism which often merges into gratuitous abuse. It is not in the national interest.

It is telling to listen to the views of retiring Members, many of whom have served their constituents and country very well. In particular I refer to some Members on the Opposition side. My views on some are well known but that does not take from my recognition that some of them have served constituencies and country very honourably. In some cases they have done so in a very low-key way without going for the headlines but doing a solid, meticulous job over the years. It is a pity some of them are now leaving politics because of how things are.

To continue the theme of innovation, experimentation and modernisation, the effects of the PR system should be mentioned. The European elections might have provided an opportunity to experiment and shift away from the single transferable vote system. We should move towards the list system. I am not in favour of the single non-transferable vote system as in the UK. That is highly undesirable and leads to huge distortions the Irish public would not accept. However there is a strong case for moving from the PR multi-seat constituency to a list system or at least for beginning to move in that direction. The former Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, made an interesting proposal when he suggested a compromise of half the Dáil being elected on a list system and the remaining half being elected on the conventional system.

Mrs. Doyle

The German system.

Dr. Upton

There is a strong case for considering the German system. The European elections were a missed opportunity for experiment. The fine details would be a matter of contention but in the national interest we should review the effects of the PR system. I held the view that this was the most desirable system but I have changed my mind. It leads to excessive parochialism and useless competition, sometimes within parties although my party does not suffer from that problem.

Mr. N. Ahern

And will not.

Dr. Upton

It leads to excessive difficulties with clientelism and parochialism in the constituency. Is it in the national interest that a good Minister or Deputy is perceived in the constituency as one who gets more than the fair share of national resources for that constituency? Is it good that a system exists whereby small self-centred minorities from the NIMBY sector can hold up development and change that is essential to the common good?

Going back 30 or 40 years, that did not exist to the same degree. There is now the concept of the political wise bird, a feathery creature who knows the ins and outs of politics and that if one does not do the right thing by one's constituency one will not be returned to the Dáil. For some that is the be-all and end-all of political life and it is a pity that it has developed. The system greatly facilitates that.

My colleagues in Dublin city have not been nearly as effective as their rural counterparts in tweaking the system to get more for their constituencies. That is not in Dublin's or the national interest. Some of the difficulties we are experiencing in Dublin are related to that. If anyone doubts that they should read the remarks of Peter Howick on The Late Late Show or get a list of constituencies and work out the grants received per head of population. One may be sure that Dublin comes at the bottom of the league. An example would be the latest national lottery funding figures. Some calculator work will find Dublin at the bottom of that and other constituencies doing very well. The Acting Chairman will be delighted to hear that Westmeath is doing very well indeed.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McGrath)

And rightly so.

Dr. Upton

If one looked at this globally, one should get a pattern that is similar or a pattern which would accord with the national needs and development.

The PR system also facilitates and encourages the holding of clinics. I am not opposed to that but when one third of a constituency has been to a clinic it is time to ask why they are necessary. It is time people asked why this is necessary. There is something fundamentally wrong with a system where a large proportion of the population believes that if it is to get its entitlements — presumably that is all it is looking for — it is necessary for it to visit a politician's clinic.

One of the difficulties attached to that type of politics is that it concentrates the mind of the politician on what is truly parochial. The successful politician is somebody who has mastered the art of fixing potholes. This type of politics encourages and facilitates the wizard of pothole works, which is undesirable. Individuals who are better at fixing potholes, repairing lights and perhaps getting the odd roundabout built do not have time to consider the national interest — the big picture which affects everybody. The difficulty is that somebody must consider the big picture which is inevitably controlled by people who are not elected or answerable to the public. It is time we moved away from that system. There is no point saying politicians should not attend clinics — life is not like that. Anyone from the business world will be familiar with the concept of competitive advertising.

It is important to move away from this system which did not exist in the early days of the State. I remember people telling me about a member of my party who represented Laoighis-Offaly and who would only visit the constituency twice a year. Perhaps the story has been dramatised and it is unfair to the person to whom I refer. However, the fact that it was told indicates the degree to which politics has changed and the clinic system has developed.

I return to the fundamental question of why, in the dying days of the 20th century, one third of the population believes it is in its interest to visit a politician's clinic. People do not go to advice centres to discuss the national question, which is one of the great fallacies of political folklore. People often write about politicians being in touch because men and women come in off the street to give them their views on the economy, economic and monetary union, Zaire or the development of Europe. That is nonsense. They visit clinics to seek something from the system to which they may be entitled. If they are entitled to something, the system should be such that it can be administered without political intervention. If political intervention is necessary to get people their entitlements, that is a serious question which needs to be addressed. Nobody would want a system to develop where it would be possible to get people what they are not entitled to through political intervention.

Mr. N. Ahern

This Bill is part of a series of legislation from the Department of the Environment. Since I was elected to the House four years ago various Bills have been introduced dealing with electoral law, but I do not know if this is the final one. It is good these matters are being revised on an ongoing basis. Somebody said I should not show too much interest in this debate because it is for those who would like to be in or are thinking of going to Brussels.

Mr. Durkan

We all think that from time to time.

Mr. N. Ahern

I have no thoughts in that regard. Those who might be contemplating standing in 1999 should be in the House. I am not suggesting that those who spoke are thinking along those lines.

Dr. Upton

We are keeping our options open. We live in hope.

Mr. N. Ahern

Niall Andrews MEP need not worry as I do not have any thoughts in this regard.

Mr. Sargent

No triple mandate.

Mr. Durkan

He will be glad of that assurance.

Mr. N. Ahern

It is stupid that we vote on a Thursday but cannot begin the count until polling stations in Europe have closed on the Sunday night. The tallymen usually have an idea about the way votes have been cast because there is often another election on the same day. If the rest of the EU holds an election on a Sunday, why can we not do so? It is embarrassing to see counting continuing three days after an election.

Mr. Durkan

The count involving Deputy Briscoe and Deputy Eric Byrne went on for a fortnight.

Mr. N. Ahern

At least that count did not take place near a public house. I often believe people are in cahoots with the local hotel owner and start counting each day at 2 p.m. to build up business. They have a great time until 3 a.m. when they adjourn the count until the next day.

I looked at the results of the American Presidential election on television on Wednesday night. I am not suggesting that we should be as efficient as the Americans but waves of results came in every hour when voting in each time zone concluded. Perhaps it is due to the electronic way they vote. People on the west coast in Los Angles, California, knew the results in states on the east when they went to vote. The Americans have no problem announcing results before voting concludes in all states.

We should experiment and hold elections on a Sunday. Some of the minority churches are reluctant to go down that road. We seem overconscious about not offending the sensitivities of some of the minority churches, yet it is very fashionable to criticise the majority church which is fair game for politicians, journalists and others. Although we have experimented on which day to hold an election, it is being used as a tool and a political device by Governments. I refer specifically to the divorce referendum. We usually hold elections on a Wednesday or Thursday but last year the Government decided to experiment with the choice of polling day and held the referendum on a Friday. I believe that was partly politically motivated, the notion being that older people will vote regardless of the day of the week but that young people must be encouraged to do so. Many young people are students who do not live at home. The Government wanted them on its side in the referendum and facilitated them in terms of the choice of polling day. The referendum was carried by a small majority and I was on the losing side.

Polling in the referendum to be held at the end of this month will take place on a Thursday. Does that mean that the Friday experiment was a failure or was it used simply to encourage young people to vote? Does the Government feel it does not have to care about the young people any more? The principle of facilitating them while they were home at the weekend was appropriate for last year's campaign but it has now been forgotten; old habits die slowly.

I am in favour of this referendum, lest anybody think otherwise, and I do not object to experimenting with the choice of polling day but the decision should not be made to support the Government's objective in holding the referendum. That is the wrong signal to send out.

I am not the first to raise this matter; it has been referred to outside the House. I understand Government sources and others are of the view that having polling day on a Friday was a success in that it facilitated many people. Why is the Government going back on that? Perhaps the Minister might give his views on this when replying.

I would like the Government to go further and consider Fridays or Sundays as possible polling days. I understand the reason the Government did not hold the divorce referendum on a Sunday; it would not be good tactics for people to leave church wound up and proceed straight to the polling stations.

The next elections to the European Parliament will be held in 1999. As of now, the next local authority elections are due to be held in 1998. Perhaps the Government has not yet addressed this matter but at the time of the last general election some people were of the view that the local elections should have been held on the same day and that the five year pattern should be adhered to. Local authority elections used to coincide with European elections and it is rumoured that will be the case again in 1999 and every five years thereafter. There is logic in that because seven years will have passed by the time the next local authority elections are held. It is unfair to ask people who are part-time local representatives to commit themselves to that job for seven years. Previous speakers referred to the fact that some Members will retire at the end of this Dáil term but we are full-time politicians. It is a totally different ball game for part-time public representatives to commit themselves for seven years. The Government might consider this matter and inform the House whether the local elections will be held in 1998 or put back to 1999 when they will coincide thereafter with the European elections.

Some speakers referred to the electoral system and this morning the Minister of State said there was provision in the Maastricht Treaty for a similar system of election to the European Parliament in all member states. That has not happened yet but rather than wait to be told we must have a list system for the European election we should debate the matter, decide what we want to do in future elections and proceed at our own pace.

Some Members mentioned the need for multi-seat constituencies to represent the minority view, be it right or left. I doubt whether such a system would work because we are often told we are all being pushed into the centre and that there is little ideological difference between one side of the House and the other. If the current system was devised to represent every minority view and to support small parties, regardless of the niche they represent, it has failed because the argument that we are all being pushed into the centre, which may have arisen because of the make-up of coalition Governments, does not stand up. I agree with others who said we should examine the whole electoral system because that is the root of all our problems.

The single seat transferable system we operate in by-elections is fair. I realise there are certain variations of the list system but I would not support it if it resulted in people being labelled as either sloggers or intellectuals. I hope that will never happen. Depending on the type of constituency Members represent they can be excellent parliamentarians. They are in a position to deal with lofty matters because they do not have much constituency work whereas with others, that is often not the case. This is probably reflected more in Dublin than in the rural constituencies where there is a cross section of society in every town. There are middle or upper class areas in some constituencies while in others there are areas in which the excluded classes live. We need a debate on this whole issue but I would not support a list system.

I referred to the fact that some Members intend to retire at the next general election. Watching the US elections on television the other night I was interested to hear about a 93 year old man who had been elected for another six year term of office; I do not know if that was to the Senate or the House of Representatives. I thought such elderly people were only elected in countries like Russia or China, not the USA. Some of the Members retiring from this House, who are only 59 or 60, might reflect on this and reconsider their intentions. Obviously their workload is different from what others have to put up with. Since the first European election, Europe has become much more relevant to the ordinary voter. It must be difficult to be an MEP. Because an MEP is away much of the time and his constituency is large, he needs different means of communicating.

The general public are becoming wiser and more up to date on the relevance of Europe. However, much is happening from which the public representative is excluded. For more than two years, detailed talks have been taking place behind the scenes on the question of urban funding which has brought a great deal of funding to the Ballymun part of my constituency. A programme is all but agreed, and we wonder how the money will be spent. At Question Time yesterday I tried to find out. I am afraid I went away none the wiser. Local activists seem to know all about how European money is being spent but I, as an elected public representative, have no formal input. I do not think my MEP has either. The elected politician has been squeezed out. It is all very well to have a bottom-up system and participation by local activists, but public representatives should also be consulted.

Deputy Upton spoke about the drudgery of running clinics. I would not pretend it is the most exciting part of our work. At the same time I would not agree with the label he put on people who call to the clinics. Not everyone who comes to a Deputy's clinic is looking for something to which he is not entitled. It is possible they are killing two birds with the one stone, looking for advice or information but giving the Deputy their views as well. What Deputy Upton said made interesting listening — sometimes I think his party colleagues feel the same. The frustrations and limitations of office seem to have got to him and perhaps he is exasperated by the limitations on what he can do. Perhaps it is a reflection of the way people come through the bigger parties that they have to serve time, perhaps too much time in some cases; by the time they are elected here they know the job in detail. Members of some of the smaller parties get elected to this House very quickly and, after a few years, become frustrated and frantic because, with an election in the offing, they have not set the world on fire as they hoped to do.

I am glad that in the last few years the practice of MEPs resigning their seats and handing them over to a substitute candidate has become less frequent. This practice gave the impression that members were going to Europe for a junket. The commitment in more recent years of career MEPs creates a better image and, being more committed, they deliver more to us in the long-term.

Mr. Sargent

Go raibh míle maith agat a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Tá an-áthas orm seans a fháil labhairt ar an mBille seo. Ní Bille réabhlóideach é. Is í an aidhm atá leis an mBille ná na píosaí reachtaíochta go léir a thabhairt le chéile agus iad a chur i láthair ar bhonn chomh simplí agus is féidir maidir le cúrsaí toghcháin. Anuas ar sin tá an chuid rudaí gur mhaith le daoine a phlé maidir le Parlaimint na hEorpa, maidir le Teachtaí na Parlaiminte agus an tslí a bhaineann siad leis an Parlaimint seo agus leis an tír.

It is appropriate that the opportunity has been taken to speak generally about this Bill and about relevant matters which are not contained in it but which will inform us when we come to amend it. For me it is particularly interesting given that, unlike any other party in the Dáil, there are more parliamentarians from the Irish Green Party in the European Parliament than there are in the national parliament — there are two, one representing Dublin and one representing Leinster. Coincidentally, and more interesting still, the Green group of the European Parliament is visiting Dublin and hosting meetings half a mile down the road in the Conrad Hotel. To that extent there is a certain appropriateness about this debate which is particularly poignant for members of the Green group.

What I am about to say may not be directly applicable to this Bill but it is something others might care to consider. It is worth reflecting on the ground rules that govern party-political broadcasts which are an essential part of an election campaign. There is a huge constituency to be considered when one is standing for election to the European Parliament. That makes it all the more relevant that publicity in the media, particularly the television media, is fairly and equally apportioned to all the candidates. Although the Green group was the fourth largest group in the European Parliament at the last election, the breakdown of party political broadcast time was based on Dáil representation. There is a certain amount of double thinking. We speak about the importance of the European Parliament and European institutions, but when it comes to the European election we forget about that and deal on the basis of Dáil representation. That is an area where we need to be consistent. Similarly, if I may speak on behalf of some of the candidates who stood as independents during that election, they warranted no consideration when it came to party political broadcasts. One could argue about the word "party". Certainly the late Deputy Neil Blaney suffered injustice in that context, as did Deputy Pat Cox who stood in Munster. Streamlining is necessary. It is hypocritical to say the European Parliament is important and at the same time ignore the facts of representation there.

The Bill provides that the deposit for a candidate standing for election remains at £1,000 and proposes some change in respect of retaining the deposit for unsuccessful candidates. What message are we sending out when we ask people to come up with £1,000 if they are to stand for the European election? A number of groups with whom I have spoken say a more democratic and genuine way of vetting candidates would be to require them to collect a certain number of signatures. In that way people could indicate they have a certain level of support, are sincere and are competent to stand for election. Under the present system, whereby a deposit of £1,000 is required, the chances are that people who are wealthy and insincere, including jokers, will stand simply because they have the money to throw around. That system should not be encouraged. It is not the best way of securing a list of people to stand as candidates. That issue ought to be debated more fully. I do not think it has been mentioned but I hope the Minister will give us the Government's views on that area. Other countries require people to collect a certain number of signatures if they wish to stand as candidates. I support that system.

It has been said people involved in political life work hard. All of us in the House could testify to that. There is also the perception, one could say it is a tabloid representation, that politicians accumulate salaries and thereby the political system is discredited in the eyes of many. It is time we looked at the dual mandate. This has already been dealt with to the extent that members of the European Parliament cannot be members of a local authority, but members of a national parliament and the European Parliament can still continue to collect salaries from both. It is interesting to note that MEPs north of the Border have a different system. They collect the one salary, if they are members, from the national parliament and half the salary from the European Parliament. In trying to harmonise the system and rules and regulations we have overlooked that hoary chestnut. It is time we faced up to it because inconsistencies of that magnitude will not do the political process any favour. The matter could be dealt with in this legislation.

The wider problem of the dual mandate or the triple mandate has not gone away. It is a difficult issue for the Government to grasp. Although many people aspire to the ideal of doing away with it nobody is prepared to do anything about it. I have tabled questions to the Minister for Equality and Law Reform on several occasions, the latest of which has been transferred to the Minister for the Environment. A shift is taking place and the goalposts are being moved from time to time. Outside of politics the dual mandate is taken seriously, especially in the report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women, published in 1993, which has been before the Government since that time. It recommends that if women are to increase their participation in politics the dual mandate must be done away with. What is happening is that a largely male dominated representative body is holding on to local authority positions. That undermines not only the position of women in politics but also the position of local authorities. This job is held on to by Deputies who are unable to attend meetings which clash with the Dáil. In effect difficult choices have to be made because one has to be bi-locational to do both jobs.

Dáil committees should be looked at in the context of attendance by MEPs. MEPs are entitled to attend the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Joint Committee on European Affairs. That is understandable in light of their membership of the European Parliament. I do not know why there is a limit on MEPs simply attending those committees. MEPs are as involved in the affairs of Ireland as any Deputy. They should have the option for much wider attendance at committees. It has become the practice that MEPs are able to use the facilities of this House.

Mr. N. Ahern

The Deputy was complaining about the dual mandate.

Mr. Sargent

I am not talking about drawing salaries. We have to distinguish between personal gain and doing our job to the greatest effect. What I am talking about is the obvious input which MEPs are required to make. In spite of what Deputy Ferris said I do not believe the co-ordination of the timetable in the European Parliament and in Dáil Éireann is sufficiently developed to allow for the role they are expected to play.

I have in mind particularly the time when MEPs are in Strasbourg. Often MEPs are unable to attend the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, which may be dealing with a matter of importance in the European Parliament, irrespective of the day of the week because it so happens that that week is a particularly difficult one for them. This matter needs to be examined in consultation with the MEPs.

Despite all the debate about this Bill, considerably less power rests with the European Parliament and with this Parliament than has been the case heretofore. Strange as it may seem, we have voted to reduce the autonomy of this Parliament, not simply to give power to the European Parliament but to unelected bodies, asking them to make decisions. Perhaps that reflects a distrust of the Parliament and a lack of knowledge about the implication of the decision. That is difficult to analyse but we must take cognisance of it. I am not simply talking about the European Commission but the greater commercial transnational corporation type of decision-making which is completely unaccountable, regardless of what Bill, electoral strategy or legislation is in place. That should be borne in mind because it is not often referred to.

Deputy Dempsey mentioned that the turnout for European Parliament elections between 1979 and 1989 decreased throughout Europe from 62.5 per cent to 57 per cent. It was also mentioned that the result of the American presidential election was announced very quickly after the votes were cast. However, the turnout was remarkably low given the size of that country. That should not be overlooked. A low turnout indicates a certain level of indifference and a belief that the work of Parliament is increasingly less relevant to the lives of the electorate. That is a cause of worry and legislators should make the legislation, and the institutions to which that legislation refers, as relevant as possible.

As mentioned by Deputy Ahern, the local authority elections would have been held last July if the five-year term of office had been complied with. However, they were postponed and we are not sure if they will be held in 1998 or 1999 — it depends to which political analyst one speaks. The message is being sent out that local authorities may continue as they are because they have very little power and will do no harm, one way or the other. I dispute that, particularly in light of some of the rezoning decisions, which is one element of power the local authorities retain and guard jealously. It is one of the few remaining powers they have.

The Minister for the Environment and the Government as a whole have a serious responsibility to review the operation of local government. I said "local government" rather than "local authorities" because we do not, in effect, have local government. We have local administrations which are not governments. For example, taxation is centrally collected. It goes through the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Finance and the Department of the Environment and a greatly diminished amount which is left over is given to the local authorities. There is an urgent need to review the process of local government funding so that local authorities can collect their funds. National Government will have to reduce its taxation to allow that to happen. That is not happening and people are disaffected and disenchanted with local government. The Government must take on board that national responsibility.

The electoral system has been debated and reference has been made to single seat constituencies, multi seat constituencies, list systems and so on. There is undoubtedly a need to examine our voting system. In 1989 the Green Party in the UK got 15 per cent of the vote in the European elections but did not win any seats, which shows there is considerable room for improvement. It is important to have a list system element.

Mr. Ring

I wish to share my time with Deputy Jim Mitchell.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Ring

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I owe a great deal to Europe, in the same way Pádraig Flynn owes a great deal to this Government. He would not be in Europe and I would not be in the Dáil if it had not all happened together.

It would be wrong of me as a Mayoman, a west of Ireland man and an Irishman not to refer to the scurrilous attack last week on our EU Commissioner by Mr. Bruce Anderson, a Daily Mail journalist. I call on Mr. Anderson, and the editor of that newspaper to withdraw those scurrilous remarks. It was an insult to our EU Commissioner, Ireland and Mayo. It was Paddybashing at its worst.

I say to Mr. Anderson that we are very proud of our representatives, whether they are members of this Government or of Fianna Fáil. The EU Commissioners we have sent to Europe have done this country proud, as Pádraig Flynn is doing now. We will not accept those remarks and the least the editor of the Daily Mail should do is to withdraw them. I hope Commissioner Flynn takes this case to court and that the Daily Mail pays the penalty it deserves.

I will not have anybody say anything about an Irishman abroad, just as I would not have anybody in this country say anything about a Mayoman. Mr. Anderson's remarks on the west of Ireland and Mr. Flynn were scandalous. The Daily Mail should, at least, publish an apology to the people of this country.

Mr. N. Ahern

That should get the Deputy a few second preferences in Castlebar.

Mr. Ring

I am working on that. Elections to the European Parliament are held every five years. A number of speakers referred to the dual mandate. I do not believe anybody can represent a Dáil constituency and a large European constituency such as Connacht-Ulster at the same time. An amendment should be made to the Bill that any Member of the Dáil elected to the European Parliament should have to resign his Dáil seat the next day. One cannot be in Brussels and Dublin at the same time.

The European Parliament is remote from the people of this country. Our MEPs should have to come to the Dáil once a year to outline what is happening in Europe and what they are doing. When we are canvassing during elections we are often told by constituents they do not see us from election to election. That is not true and every Member of this House knows how hard TDs work in terms of running clinics and meeting deputations. It might be true, however, of our MEPs. It is time they were more answerable to the people.

The European Parliament is a grand place to be and I intend to stand for it some time in the next 20 years. However, I intend to have a long stint in this House first. I am looking forward to perhaps being a Minister in the next Government after we are returned to office. I do not intend to leave this House for a long time, although there might be a shortage of candidates for Europe. There are six TDs in Mayo but only five will be returned to this House after the next election, so the surplus might wonder if there is anything for them in Europe.

The main reason I am speaking on this Bill is that I would love to see a provision in all election Bills in relation to poll clerks. I tabled questions to the Taoiseach requesting that unemployed people be employed during the census and elections. There are approximately 300,000 unemployed people and many of them would be able to do this job. Why is the job given to retired people, county council workers and people earning good salaries who take holidays from their permanent jobs? This job should be given to the people who need it, the unemployed and social welfare recipients. The same happened during the census where some of the people employed were on holidays from their permanent jobs. It is not popular to say so, but this is wrong. It is little wonder people are critical of politicians when they cannot direct that the unemployed should be given first preference for this job.

I do not understand why we cannot hold elections on a Sunday, as happens in other European countries. The next European elections should be held on a Sunday so that everyone has an opportunity to vote.

Following my election, I had to wait 15 months to get back my deposit. If a civil servant was owed £1 on 1 September and it was not paid on that date a union representative would ask on 2 September why it had not been paid. This deposit of £300 was a lot of money to me in 1994 and I was glad to get it back. County registrars should be able to return deposits to candidates seven days after an election. Politicians think about everyone else and maybe it is time they thought about themselves. It may be possible to amend the Bill by including a provision under which deposits would have to be returned to candidates seven days after an election.

The best proposal I have heard in a long time is that county managers should be elected by the public. This would give them an understanding of what is involved in dealing with the general public.

Elections to the European Parliament are held every five years. I was glad an election was not held after the collapse of the Fianna Fáil-Labour Government and that it was possible for the elected Members to form another Government. Regardless of the issue, if a Government collapses within the five year fixed period an alternative Government should be formed without holding another election. The public elect us for five years and we should be able to form a Government.

I welcome the Bill and hope there will be positive amendments to it.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I am glad the Minister of State, Deputy Allen, has returned to the Chamber. He is a busy Minister but I take exception to the practice which has developed in recent years whereby a Minister from the relevant Department is not present for the entire debate. I made the same point during the debate on social welfare legislation. If the relevant Minister is not present to hear our contributions then we are wasting our time. There are three Ministers in the Department of the Environment and at least one of them should be present for the debate.

Mr. Allen

I listened to the debate on the monitor in my office.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I am not criticising the Minister of State, Deputy Allen, who has responsibilities in other Departments and is one of the hardest working Ministers. Neither is it a reflection on the Minister of State who sat in for him. However, it shows scant respect for Parliament if none of the three Ministers in the Department of the Environment is present for the debate. This is not acceptable and it is about time Parliament put down its foot on this matter. Our job is to hold Ministers to account and it is not good enough that none of the three relevant Ministers is present for long periods of this debate. I will continue to make this point if this practice is not changed.

It is very important for local elections to be held on the same day as European elections. The present large number of elections is not in the interests of the country as it diverts the attention of politicians from their national duties. The next general election, which will be held at some stage during the next 12 months, will be the eighth general election in 20 years. General elections are held, on average, every two and a half years. During the same period there will be four European elections and three or four local elections, not to mention Presidential elections and the host of by-elections. This focuses the attention of Deputies on elections rather than on the task of vetting expenditure and legislation. When Parliament is not doing its job properly we end up with costly scandals such as those in relation to beef and hepatitis C. Similar scandals will continue to occur unless we properly vet expenditure and legislation and call Ministers to account.

I agree with Deputy Ring that if a Government collapses within the five year fixed term we should be able to form a new Government without holding another election. Elections to the Dáil should be held in the middle of the fixed term for the European elections so that we go before the people once every two and a half years instead of once every year as at present. The decision to postpone the local elections some years ago was a mistake as it resulted in extra costs for politicians, a need for additional fund-raising and diverted politicians' interest from their duties.

The Act states that the local elections will be held in 1998 but also gives the Minister for the Environment the power to postpone them for a further year. A decision should be taken now that the next local elections will be held on the same day as the European elections. Following this, the power granted to the Minister to defer local elections should be repealed. This power was probably given initially to deal with an emergency where it was difficult to hold local elections. However, it is now being used frequently to defer local elections, which is undemocratic. It does not make sense that we have no choice but to hold European elections every five years. This would save money and the time of politicians, which would enable them to give more attention to considering legislation and vetting expenditure. It would also enable them to engage in double fund-raising activities for both types of election. We must get these elections back in kilter and keep them synchronised.

On the issue of the role of the European Parliament and national Parliaments in the future governance of the EU, as chairman of the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs, and in common with the chairmen of the national finance committees in each of the member states, I am usually invited to Brussels approximately twice a year to meet the European Parliament economic and budgetary committee. This is a good thing, although it is an ad hoc arrangement. As part of the next Intergovernmental Conference, we should seek to institutionalise the relationship between national Parliaments and their committees and the European Parliament and its committees. It should be a standing requirement that the chairperson of the relevant parliamentary committees would be ex officio members of the corresponding committees of the European Parliament and that such committees would be required to meet at least twice a year, once in Brussels and once in one of the national capitals, to consider issues of joint interest. It is important that a connection be made between the proximate bodies of the national and European Parliaments, otherwise national Parliaments can get out of touch with what is going on in the European Parliament.

As the EU develops, there is a compelling case for a Second House of the European Parliament which would not be directly elected but would represent the national Parliaments. There is such a body in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. All 15 member states of the EU are members of the parliamentary assembly, as are all applicant members. It and the European Parliament meet in the same building at Strasbourg. If we agreed that the membership from the member states would constitute a Second House — a Senate — of the European Parliament this would be one way of ensuring that national Parliaments are directly represented at the centre. It would also enable parliamentarians from the non member states to at least know what is going on in the EU and to be au fait with requirements should they wish to become member states. It would provide for greater cohesion and understanding across Europe.

On the question of weekend elections, a recent election was held on a Friday, which was very satisfactory. Elections on Fridays, with the polls open until 10 p.m., would ensure that many commercial travellers, students and others who work away from home could vote, whereas elections held on days during the middle of the week makes it difficult for many people. I favour holding elections at weekends, preferably on Fridays or even on Saturdays or Sundays.

Deputy Dempsey's comments on our voting system should be carefully considered by the Minister. Many Members on all sides of the House, including me, support, and have supported for years, a move away from multi-seat constituencies, which cause more division within parties than between them. They also cause competition at constituency level which diverts people from national affairs. We should adopt an electoral system based on the German model, with refinements to suit our circumstances. The forthcoming European and local elections would be an apt time to try this on a project basis.

The rules should be changed so that members of national Parliaments cannot also be Members of the European Parliament. This exemption should not be enshrined in law and we should seek union wide agreement on this.

There is much controversy about the expenses to which Members of the European Parliament are entitled. There should be mechanisms to better scrutinise this so that Members are well compensated for their work while ensuring that taxpayers of the union are not ripped off.

Mr. M. Kitt

The Minister should consider the way in which constituencies for elections to the European Parliament are drawn up. Changes have been made which have especially affected the Munster and Leinster constituencies. However, if we confine the criteria to population considerations there will be serious repercussions for the western region. Figures compiled by the Western Development Partnership Board show that approximately 9 per cent of the population now lives in the north-west of Ireland, while 41 per cent live in the five eastern counties extending from Counties Louth to Wexford. In persistently drawing attention to this regional imbalance, the board expresses concern about depopulation and emigration from the north-west.

Legislation providing for the redrawing of constituencies should make provision for regions which have not only lost population through emigration, but which have experienced internal migration. For example, cities and towns such as Galway, Castlebar and Letterkenny have grown while rural areas have declined.

If some of the Department's proposals are implemented there will be a difficulty in providing polling stations, especially if the proposal that there should be 1,000 voters per polling station — it is approximately 400 to 500 at present — is implemented. Such a move would close down many stations, creating problems for voters especially if they have to travel long distances. The Minister addressed these issues when we previously considered legislation on electoral reform. However, it must be addressed again, especially in the context of elections to the European Parliament.

I hope the Minister of State will act quickly on the question of voting facilities for the disabled. While the special list compiled for disabled voters is welcome, many of them cannot gain access to polling stations. This matter must be addressed urgently.

There has been much talk about voting at weekends. It is amazing that we have held elections on almost every day of the week except Saturday or Sunday. The by-election in Donegal last April was held on a Tuesday, the divorce referendum was held on a Friday and the referendum on bail will be held on a Thursday. Since the divorce referendum, it is generally agreed that it is easier for people to get to polling stations on Fridays. Students argue that the bail referendum should also be held on a Friday, when many of them would be returning to their constituencies for the weekend. As we have tried almost every other day of the week, we should now find out if there would be consensus on holding elections on a Saturday or Sunday.

It is unacceptable that we cannot announce the result of European elections until the elections are held in other member states. In the last European elections people here voted on a Thursday, but had to wait until Sunday or Monday to know the result. That does not make sense. Voting in European elections should be streamlined throughout the European Union. There has been much talk about having a similar voting system in all EU countries, but I do not believe that will happen. It might not be even desirable. However, we should examine the possibility of holding European elections on the same day in all EU countries.

I support the comments of Deputy Mitchell and others regarding the list system in Germany. I favour the concept of a single seat constituency based on the Norton amendment. We are told that if that amendment had been put to the people, it would have been carried. I support a move towards smaller constituencies. Members may say this would suit Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, but not smaller parties. I have been a Deputy in a three and four seat constituency and, failing the introduction of a single seat constituency, I favour the concept of a three seat constituency. In referring to the German system, I am not trying to eliminate small parties who might find it difficult to contest three seat constituencies. The list system would favour small parties.

I have been an observer at a number of elections in Europe, particularly when east European countries moved to democracies. During those observation missions I noted that only those parties which got 5 per cent of the vote were represented in parliament. This indicated the way power would be shared in the new democracies. I was an observer at elections in Lesotho in Africa where elections had not been held for 20 years. It is only when one is denied the vote that one cherishes a democracy. In the case of South Africa and other African countries, people had to queue for hours to vote and then dip their fingers in indelible ink. The hardship many people endure in order to vote demonstrates its importance.

Under our proportional representation system, there are between 20,000 and 30,000 head of the population per representative. For that reason we should consider the concept of a single seat constituency, particularly for European elections. The Connacht-Ulster constituency stretches from the Clare border to Donegal and incorporates other counties in Ulster. It is difficult for any MEP to cover such a vast constituency. MEPs get a bad press, most of which relates to expenses. The president of the European Parliament is considering a European rate of pay for all MEPs. Our MEPs get paid less than any other members of the European Parliament. Therefore, a common European rate of pay would benefit our MEPs.

We should have the same type of office and research facilities as MEPs. Our research facilities and staffing levels do not compare with any other parliament in the European Union. We know from the American students who have come here that members of Congress have large staffing numbers. In discussing the Bill, and the role of the MEP, we should also seek better facilities for members of this Parliament.

The issue of voting rights for emigrants was discussed when the Minister of State introduced the Bill on electoral reform. At that time I said emigrants should have voting rights. They seek voting rights in European, Dáil and presidential elections and referenda but not in local elections. This is correct because local elections are a matter for people in the various local authority areas. I propose that recent emigrants could remain on the register of electors in their local constituencies for a certain number of years to enable them to vote for candidates in that constituency.

The proposal to give three Seanad seats to emigrants' representatives was unacceptable to emigrants' organisations. It was not regarded as practical and the Government has correctly decided to abandon the idea. Emigrants do not want Seanad seats, they want voting rights. One of the arguments against giving emigrants voting rights is that it would be difficult to organise at election time. However, the European Parliament has a set five year term and if such a term was set for this House, many of the matters which are considered impractical could be overcome. This reform, and a change to single seat constituencies, should be considered. It would solve the question raised by many people about the arrangements for ensuring emigrants' votes reach the returning officers in the various constituencies.

Experts in the field tell me it is possible to use international fax facilities and special identity cards, perhaps detailing the passport numbers of emigrants. These matters should be considered to ensure the practical problems of emigrants' voting rights are overcome. The European Union includes 15 countries at present and others wish to join. It is unfair that emigrants can vote in other countries but not in Ireland. I do not understand how emigrants' votes could have a disproportionate effect in marginal constituencies. The same could be said of the postal votes of gardaí, Army personnel and diplomatic staff. We must accept the principle that emigrants are entitled to vote and not assume they will vote for the Opposition or Government. It is up to them to choose, in common with all electors, the candidates they wish to support.

I welcome the debate on the Bill which consolidates and amends domestic law. Local elections are due to be held in 1998 while the European elections will be held in 1999. Will the Minister state whether both elections will be held in 1999? It has been the practice to hold local elections on the same day as the European elections and perhaps the Minister of State should announce now rather than later that this will be the case in 1999. However, if the local elections will be held in 1998, Deputies should be told that also.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Allen)

I will try to deal with many of the issues raised by Deputies. I appreciate this useful and constructive debate.

The Bill is designed to consolidate the detailed rules for the conduct of European elections and harmonise them as far as is practicable with the rules relating to Dáil elections which have been revised and consolidated. Many points were raised, including the dual mandate, the electoral system, improvements in procedures, Sunday voting, speedy counting, photographs on ballot papers, holding European and local elections on the same day, deposits for nominations and the 1994 electoral Bill.

Deputies Kitt and Ahern raised the possibility of holding the European and local elections on the same day. This is possible and has occurred in the past. However, the year for the European Parliament elections is fixed throughout the European Union and postponing local elections for a year will be criticised because some councillors will have served eight years without re-election. A change in the year for the next local elections would require legislation as 1998 is presented in the Local Government Act, 1994, as the year for the elections.

Other issues raised related to the possibility of including candidates' photographs on ballot papers. Apart from the principle, the inclusion of photographs would give rise to serious practical difficulties because little time is available during elections for preparing, printing and issuing ballot papers.

Regarding Sunday voting, for direct elections to the European Parliament the Bill provides that European elections must take place between Thursday and Sunday. Sunday voting would have advantages; it would facilitate people, such as travellers, who are normally away from home on week days, reduce or eliminate school closures, facilitate voters by giving them a wide choice in terms of the time of day at which they could vote and it could increase the percentage poll. However, there are disadvantages and there would be objections on religious grounds from some denominations. The issue of Sunday voting was raised some years ago with the church leaders and the minority churches indicated that they would be opposed to it on religious and moral grounds while the Catholic Church had no objection. Saturday is the Jewish Sabbath and some arrangements would be necessary for that community. In addition, the poll could be reduced because people go away at weekends and because of sporting and other events.

I thank the Deputies for their contributions and I will attempt to deal on Committee Stage with the many diverse issues which were raised.

Question put and agreed to.