Let us proceed to the consideration of Item 2a in regard to direct elections. Deputy Thornley is a member of the European Parliament and we should like to have the benefit of his views on this matter. The present position is that there is a draft convention which is directed towards elections to the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage. What way would you wish me to proceed?
Direct Elections to European Parliament.
At this point I wish to give you the benefit of my views.
Then we shall hear you straightaway.
I hope you will give me a certain amount of latitude in talking on this subject of direct elections with which I am directly concerned because I, amongst others, submitted a paper to Mr. Schelto Patign who produced a document most favourable to Ireland, giving us 13 representatives in future direct elections to the European Parliament. He also accepted a recommendation by my own Government that these direct elections shouldbe brought forward from 1980 to 1978. This is an excellent recommendation and one I was delighted the European Parliament accepted. The case, as I say, was for 13 representatives——
Thirteen out of 355?
Yes, 13 out of 355, elected in 1978. Forgive me if I put on my academic hat as an Associate Professor of Political Science in addition to being a Dáil Deputy. Forgive me also if I seem to attack my colleague, Senator Robinson, because I do not intend to do so in any personal way, but my good friend, Senator Robinson, has the unique qualification of sitting for what is perhaps the most peculiar electorate in the whole of western Europe.
You can insult me, but do not insult my electorate.
I would shudder to think I would be forced to seek the suffrages of Senator Robinson's electorate with a quota of roughly 1,000, 10,000—I cannot remember.
Eight.
Eight hundred? Upon which it is necessary——
I have no desire to interrupt the Deputy, but I would hope he would indicate the relevance of this.
I shall explain in a second the relevance of this. This electorate is unique in that one has only to go before it and talk about contraception, divorce and abortion and a few other things and one gets elected again and again. I, on the other hand, like my Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael colleagues, live in a sort of twilight world. I feel, sometimes, talking on this subject of direct elections as if I were a record with a needle stuck in the crack, always saying the same things.
We are not facing up to our problems in a number of ways. First, we have no back-up staff worthy of the name. Senator Robinson is completely right here. I go over to the European Parliament with my colleagues. I do not know what I am talking about half the time. There are some things I know about. Document PE 127/43/73 comes in front of me saying that the length of trailers should be such-and-such in 1978. I do not know what they are talking about and cannot make an impact. I come back to my country and they are not interested either. They want to know whether the boreen going from Roundstone to Clifden is going to be resurfaced within the next six months. They do not realise that the decisions taken over there are going to affect their lives fundamentally. The action on direct elections gave us a tremendous advantage. My Christian Democrat colleagues did not exactly help me; they inadvertently voted for ten seats when they should have voted for 13, because they did not read the small print. That is an example of what I mean. If you do not read the small print you make an idiot of yourself.
We are unique in a number of ways : as I say, our total lack of back-up staff. I walked into the Parliament building once and met Mr. Peter Kirk, leader of the Conservative English delegation. He said to me : " Will there be a vote, David?", and I said : " I do not know, Peter." Ten minutes later he was on his feet making a brilliant and expansive speech on some remote subject like the shipping of Marsala figs or of olive oil or something like that into the Community, while I was floundering around like a fool. He had the staff to tell him: " This is what we think ". Every one of us is in this difficulty.
Criticism has been made of this committee. One of the problems facing this committee is that most of the people who have direct experience of membership of the European Parliament are physically not in a position to attend its meetings. I fly to Paris tomorrow to discuss the question of the European Parliament presidential election. Is my place there or is it here? I do not know.
Getting back to direct elections and the time for them, I need not tell you that we have one of the most extraordinary systems of election in west Europe, the multi-member PR system which, to my knowledge, is used only by Australia and ourselves. I am sorry if I give you a short, curt lecture on political science, but all this is very relevant to the times.
The suggestion has been that each country may use its own system of election. That seems very attractive at first, but what does it mean in practice? We have 13 Members representing Ireland, elected by PR. What will we have? We will have four constituencies of roughly 300,000 people in one of which I shall be standing as prospective Member for Leinster. This is basically what it boils down to if we stick to the existing system of election.
One of the things the European Parliament agreed to was that dual mandate should cease to exist. One of Deputy O'Kennedy's Gaullist colleagues, a brilliant man, once described us in Berlin in my presence as exhausted men. That is what we are.
It is very easy for somebody who represents such an esoteric constituency as Trinity College to fail to understand the attendance ratios and commitments to this process, of people like me who must depend on getting 7,000 or 8,000 votes to get elected. I have to come home from Europe and spend Saturdays, Sundays and Mondays where people are only concerned about things like blue cards and disability benefits. How many such cases have come before our Senatorial colleagues ? I have to combine this role with spending half of my life in airplanes and airport lounges.
As I have said, the European Parliament have said that the dual mandate should not be permitted to continue—that a man should not be permitted to be a Member of his local parliament and the Parliament of Europe.
Is that your view?
It is my view. I have no interest in it because I can go back to Trinity College in the morning. First of all we were to have direct elections by 1980. Now it is to be 1978. How, where and what way? Thirteen one-seat constituencies or four, one of four seats and three of three? I have wanted to get this off my chest for a long time. How in the name of heavens are we to rationalise this in practice? The Seanad does not effectively meet as a political forum. We do not have the list system. We represent ordinary people trying to get blue cards in my case, or group water schemes or re-roading or housing in the case of some other Deputy. Would somebody apply a bit of commonsense to this? We do all this without back-up staff. What are we involved in Europe for? What are we here for? Senator Robinson has attacked this Committee for not providing a back-up service for our people who go to Europe—investigation of legislation and other things.
Might I put one question? The data which we have had contains the recent draft convention and Article 5 states the viewpoint:
Membership of the European Parliament shall be compatible with membership of a Parliament of a Member State.
There are very wide views on dual mandate. Some hold it is not compatible. Those who hold that view very often come from countries which have systems through which there can be nominations—where one does not have to look over his shoulder at the process of canvass or vote selection.
I am sorry if I have gone too far. The difficulty we are facing or will face by 1978 is that we have the most extraordinary electoral system in west Europe and that if we continue on this basis the only people we will be sending to Europe will be young men who hope they are on the way up or old men who know they are on the way down. You can treat it as a joke: if your mother was frightened in pregnancy by a commercial traveller, it would be a delightful way to spend your life. We are not politically geared to face direct elections by 1978.
I think I should point out that we fully appreciate the enormous workload our delegates have to carry and of the fact that the ten Members are discharging their duties with great dedication and devotion. In spite of the difficulties, they have made a very significant contribution to the affairs of the European Parliament. We would not like Deputy Thornley to be under a misapprehension in regard to that.
Anyway, most of us—through our personal knowledge—are quite satisfied as to the very serious obligations, workload and responsibilities which our European Parliamentary members are undertaking. We are also aware that, in their different groups, they are making a very solid and significant contribution and influence on the European Parliament.
This document before us raises a number of points for discussion, points of very real relevance and significance for us here as parliamentarians. We in this committee are perhaps the best-suited in the country to discuss this issue. I should like to hear fully from the members on this draft convention before us. Deputy Thornley adverted to one important aspect, that is, whether there should be a dual mandate; whether it is possible in ordinary circumstances, with the exigencies of travel and so on, for a person to discharge properly his responsibilities as a Member of a national Parliament and the European Parliament at the same time.
The second point which seems to merit our attention is what system of election we should adopt internally. The convention would purport to leave it open to each country to set its own system. Perhaps we might talk here today about what system we think would be appropriate to our circumstances to elect these 13 members, if 13 members it is going to be. Then there are other subsidiary aspects, such as links with national Parliaments. There is also, then, the very important and crucial issue: do we think we can be ready for these direct elections by 1978? Those are matters on which I would very much welcome the views of the members.
Despite Deputy Thornley's unkind words, not in fact directed so much at me—which I would let go without comment—but at my electorate, I would like to join with the Chairman in expressing deep sympathy for Deputy Thornley's position in discharging the dual mandate as it obtains at present. This is a most unfair burden that is accentuated by the distance from Dublin to either Luxembourg or Strasbourg. I think it is worse for Irish members than any other European Parliament members. This gives rise also to the problem of communication.
And, in some instances, shall we say, the distance from Kerry or Mayo to Dublin.
Yes, indeed, before their undertaking the rest of the journey. I think, though, the reference in article 5 here must be interpreted carefully. At present the only representation at the European Parliament is by dual mandate; the representatives who sit in the European Parliament go as delegates from their national Parliaments. Therefore, the whole composition of the body consists of people who discharge this dual mandate.
The provision of article 5 would alter this. It is an enabling provision. It says if there is a member of a national Parliament who feels that he or she can take on the additional burden of being a member of the European Parliament, he or she will not be excluded. I think that is a good provision, particularly in the transitional period. That means that the European Parliament would not consist entirely of people who had never served on a national Parliament. Otherwise, we could have inexperienced people who were interested in serving on the European Parliament but who never stood for election to their own national Parliament. I think the provision in article 5 will make for a good blend; that there will be several people who will stand for the European Parliament who will not be members of their national Parliament; some candidates who were formerly members of their national Parliament and also some existing members of the various national Parliaments who will be prepared to operate the dual mandate in the European Parliament.
I think one of the good aspects of the draft convention is that it separates the question of having links between national Parliaments and the European Parliament and the dual mandate as such. I think it was an unreal assumption that the dual mandate led to very useful links between the national and European Parliaments. I think the dual mandate, as such, has prevented members of the European Parliament from contributing as actively as they might in the national Parliaments in European areas. The attendance of delegates to the European Parliament on this Committee for example, has been, for the reasons I have given, necessarily disappointing. They have not been able to be present here because, when they come back to the country, they have to spend a considerable amount of time in their constituencies or else on the floor of whichever House they are members.
Perhaps the most crucial issue for this country is the way in which we decide to hold elections to the European Parliament. I would agree with Deputy O'Kennedy that this should be a matter for in-depth study, for sub-committee study, reporting back to this Committee. There should be consultation with the political parties and there should be a detailed report prepared. I would see substantial advantage in regional constituencies because I think that Europe is beginning, more and more, to speak to the regions within the nation states. This could be helped by having representation from those regions. Although the region may be large and, therefore, the constituency necessarily a large one, when one is talking about the major European issues affecting that region, it would be possible to have a meaningful relationship between the representative or representatives of a particular region and the problems of that region, in, say, getting assistance from the Social Fund, trying to influence the common agricultural policy or whatever may be the particular problem.
If we are to meet the deadline in the draft convention of having the first direct elections in May, 1978, the first pressure to be exerted at present must be on the Council to approve this draft convention before the end of 1976. I could see no reason at all why the Council could not approve this draft convention during the term of the Irish presidency. I should like to see this Joint Committee call upon the present President of the Council of Ministers to approve this draft convention during the term of the Irish presidency so that the elaborate mechanism for adopting it—noting that it amends the treaties and, therefore, requires to be adopted by each of the national Parliaments—can be put in motion and then the national systems can gear themselves for direct elections to the European Parliament.
The significance of elections to the European Parliament will be twofold. First of all, it will give the important concept of legitimacy to the European Parliament. At present the European Parliament suffers from the disadvantage of not having a strong political base of its own. Already developments are taking place which are quite significant, including expanding the budgetary power of the Parliament, extending control—even yesterday's insistence by the European Parliament that it would debate the regional policy before it was finalised—which demonstrates the way in which a Parliament takes onto itself further power and makes an impact on the political system. This is much more difficult to do if there is not the democratic legitimacy of direct elections. In the movement towards European union, however that may be defined, and however Prime Minister Tindemans may report on the concept of European union, there must be at its base a directly elected Parliament with a legitimate base for decisions taken at the European level which are not appropriate to and cannot be taken properly at, national level. In fact, that will be the only possible balance.
As well as that, I think the direct elections themselves will improve the working of the European Parliament. Over a time it will be possible to get a genuine mandate from the regions that are represented through direct elections. A person standing for election to the European Parliament, whether or not he is a member of a national Parliament, has to go forward on some sort of platform. In my view, this means that the political parties would have to have much more thought about policies and programmes in Europe than they have at present. There would have to be more thinking at the local level as to how a particular candidate, being a member of that party, could project the ideas of the party about the way in which they would like to see Europe developing and what they can achieve through their grouping at the European Parliament. That dialogue does not exist at present.
That raises the interesting point of whether we would even have our own political parties at present going into Europe, or whether we would have the Christian Democrats, Socialists——
Yes, I think that possibility would be open but one or other would have to happen. At the moment I do not think the political parties themselves are sufficiently aware of and have a sufficiently positive policy towards the European dimension.
I appreciate that others wanted to contribute to this discussion. I think our discussion of direct elections will be more useful if we can, at the end of the discussion, first of all approve this draft—convention—if we do approve of direct elections—and, secondly, call upon the President of the Council of Ministers to have the matter agreed at Council level before the end of 1976. I think that is an unnecessarily long deadline since the Parliament managed to agree to put forward their proposals in such a short time and if the 1978 deadline is to be a realistic one. Thirdly, I think we should give one of our sub-committees the job of examining in more detail the question of direct elections.
No doubt, having studied the matter thoroughly and each having made up his mind about it, we will all decide to approve of this draft convention and pass an appropriate resolution of the kind suggested by Senator Robinson. However, speaking for myself I received this brief on the 3rd of this month, which was two days ago. I have been doing other things and have read it only once. I have therefore, become aware of the problems but have not made up my mind as to how they should be solved. I do not think we should rush it today. By the way, I should like to pay a compliment to our secretariat on the nature of the briefing we have got. I do not find anything missing in the material that I would want to criticise. I think it would be more appropriate for consideration by a sub-committee, and I would personally be quite happy to take an active part in that. We ought to read each article of the convention to see what views we have on it. We have to think of the hard political facts, know the inter-relation of vacancies in this body with the political situation at any given time, and know what happens when such a vacancy occurs. That is only one example. There is another example on page 9, paragraph 45, of this document which is called Part II of the Draft Report, arising from an interesting reference to certain criteria suggested by the rapporteur“ balanced representation of all the citizens of the Community ” and “ representation of all political groupings represented in a Member State.”
That seems to me to raise very interesting and profound questions. For example, do we give, on a population basis, a disproportionate representation to people living in the western regions? Is this the way to have a balanced representation? Although it has been done in this way under our Constitution, we must consider the nature of the legislation we would need. There is a tremendous lot to be considered, and we can all consider any of these questions aiming at targets of 1978 and so on, but we may not attain them, and we may even be thinking of another generation of people operating our procedures. We ought to be thinking in that long-term way, trying to set up a system that will be enduring and good for this country in its relationship with Europe.
My own strong feeling would be that this ought to be referred to a sub-committee of this Committee. I certainly share the view expressed by Senator Robinson in regard to the hardship endured by people who are members of the Irish Parliament, the European Parliament and also members of a committee of this kind. I think such a sub-committee ought, by definition, not to include them but that such a sub-committee should keep in touch with representatives of the European Parliament in order to get their detailed views. I suggest excluding them simply to lift a burden from them.
I agree with what Senator FitzGerald has said. If we could, at this stage, establish the heads of what would be considered by the sub-committee, we would be making good progress. I was interested to hear the comments of Deputy Thornley as the only member of the European Parliament present. I do not know whether or not the current members of the European Parliament have had ad hoc discussions on this, but I think it is vitally important that we inform ourselves on what the practical problems are. We would have to arrange an occasion when all the current members of the European Parliament would be able to give their individual and collective views, which would seem to be a sine qua non.
If I were asked for a view on the dual mandate, I would say that for a Member of the Seanad it would be both workable and desirable; for a Member of the Dáil representing a Dublin constituency it would be difficult but not impossible; but for a Member of the Dáil representing a rural constituency, it would be both undesirable and impossible.
On the question of representation, if we were to come down against the dual mandate, then the question of representation of members of the European Parliament on this Committee would arise. I take Senator Robinson's point that probably too much has been made of the fact that members of the European Parliament are available to liaise between the national Parliament and the European Parliament. But from my own experience I found it very helpful to be able to consult with our members of the European Parliament. I would like to think that people like myself who would not be in the European Parliament would have some such facility available to us that we could effectively discharge our functions. There is the question whether members of the European Parliament, under a dual mandate or otherwise, would be entitled to attend here as full members.
I mention these matters merely as heads. I find myself in the same position as Senator FitzGerald. I got this documentation only in the last few days. I have seen it in some detail only in the last hour. Again I would agree that this type of documentation makes our work a little easier. It is very precise. We should examine it article by article and see what suggestions or alterations we can propose.
There is one other matter I should like to mention. Senator FitzGerald made reference to it not directly but by implication; that is, the whole question of casual vacancies in the European Parliament. I do not think any of us would like to see an extension of the type of activity we have seen over the last few weeks imposed on whoever it is it would be imposed on. Some qualification or list system might be desirable, because having regard to the strain we were told these gentlemen are suffering under, the strain of casual vacancies in the European Parliament would be unthinkable.
I have an identity of thought with Deputy O'Kennedy about the by-election situation in this country vis-�-vis what would occur if there was a vacancy in the European Parliament. It seems to me that a by-election brought about by the death or resignation of somebody in Europe and fought on Irish soil over internal political issues would be farcical. However, I think we are making too much of an issue of this. Broadly, we are in agreement that direct elections should take place. The reason we are making so much of an issue of this question of the dual mandate is that the experience of what is happening in the European Parliament is related by those who are members there. It may be that we become a little subjective in our approach because of the frustrations of Deputies who are involved in Europe.
Do you not think it is a very troublesome issue?
I do not think so. I am totally in sympathy with those who are members of the European Parliament. Deputy O'Kennedy's answer in regard to those who have to divide their time was excellent. It is clear from the proposals before us that the question of the dual mandate is not affected—that one may be a Member of the Parliament of the member state and of the European Parliament. At the same time, the reality is, as Deputy O'Kennedy stated, that it is most undesirable in about 60 or 70 per cent of the cases that Dáil Members should also be members of the European Parliament. I am afraid we have been making too much of a point about the liaison between the Dáil and the European Parliament: that level of communication is there, whether the European Parliament member is also a Dáil Deputy.
Indeed, one could argue there would be better and more sensible communication if a member of the European Parliament was not also a Member of the Dáil for the reasons suggested by Deputy Thornley. If a member of the European body is also a Member of the Dáil, he must spend a lot of his time there, and in his constituency looking after such problems as roads, sewerage, gutters, drains and so on.
We will bring up the dual mandate issue on the basis of being against it.
I do not think you can legitimately exclude dual membership—that you can say we will not allow Members of the national Parliament to become members of the European Parliament.
It is possible the convention may include a provision entitling a particular country in its particular circumstances, to preclude——
Even if the convention permits dual membership, we have to take the second decision—whether we would recommend that our system would permit of dual mandate.
That would seem to be the case.
I see no reason why membership of the European Parliament is incompatible with membership of the Dáil. As far as Seanad Éireann is concerned, because of the difference in the constituencies and in the demands on Members, the situation is different. Somebody spoke about the size of the country and compared the distance a Deputy or Senator from, say, west Cork, has to travel to Dublin to what an Irish member of the European Parliament must do to get to Strasbourg——
Or Luxembourg.
I am as aware as Deputy Thornley about the frustrations of Members of the Oireachtas who are in the European Parliament. There has been criticism of this Committee—even of those of us who are not members of the European Parliament—for combining membership of both Parliaments, from the point of view that a Member of this Parliament has to do so much work at constituency level that he could not engage at his best in debates in two parliamentary assemblies.
I am glad we have a full complement of staff and new offices. We need the full support and assistance of a full secretariat to support our delegates in the European Parliament. That is my reason for suggesting that a sub-committee be established, possibly as an entrée to our consideration of the draft convention on direct elections.
I agree fully that the dual mandate is probably impracticable here except in isolated cases. There are people in the European Parliament who would not agree that the dual mandate should be excluded : In other words, they would defend the system as it stands. Clearly it is a matter for decision in this country how we should approach this problem.
I would not be in favour of any Bill that would exclude dual mandate. It is a matter for the political parties to decide what is practical and impractical. We could play an important part in the making of firm recommendations about the circumstances in which members of different parties should go forward for the European Parliament when they are already Members of one of the Houses here.
I would not attempt for one moment to interfere with article 5 of the convention, and as I have said, I would not be in favour of a Bill which would exclude the dual mandate. I think this Committee could play a very important part in making recommendations.
The convention leaves it open to dual mandate but states that any individual country, as far as it is concerned, may have it.
That is something I do not know about.
There is the phrase " shall be compatible."
If we tried to exclude a sitting Member of the Oireachtas from competing in direct elections there could be a referral to the European Court on the basis of discrimination.
It would be unwise from the legal as well as the practical viewpoints.
We must go for changing article 5.
Having regard to the geographical distance involved, that might be impossible.
Surely this is really a practical problem. Why close the door to the dual mandate here? Members of the European Parliament tell us the problems exist. Therefore it is unlikely that a Deputy representing either a Dublin or a rural constituency will in fact stand for the European Parliament.
He might be misguided enough to do a bad job in both Parliaments.
But if we make firm representations—and this is an all-party Committee—hopefully the various parties will consider our recommendations. As regards the question of time, it has been suggested that May, 1978, is unrealistic. All I can say about that is that, no matter what date we pick, it will be unrealistic unless we say the date is firm and work to it. It seems to me to be not unrealistic. We can easily do it if we are absolutely convinced that it must be done by that date, and it is only a matter of working to it.
I agree fully that there should be a sub-committee to deal with the details of this Convention. What I am not very sure about—perhaps some Members here can give an assessment of the situation—is what, from the practical point of view, are the chances of making any real change in this Convention. It has been passed by the European Parliament, it is going to the Council, which is not likely to interfere with it very much. Therefore, I should like to hear anybody who can give a view on this.
It has to be ratified by the national parliaments.
Yes, but if we do not ratify it, where does it get us?
Is this not a case that comes under paragraph 235 of the Treaty?
Now that we have the opportunity of discussing this issue in sub-committee, I think it would be a terrible pity if we also did not address ourselves to the constitutional functions of the European Parliament, as such, because there is no doubt that there is held a rather jaundiced, cynical view within many of the national parliaments in Europe that the European Parliament, as such, is either a place for retired politicians or aspiring ones. I will not suggest into which category we should put our colleagues at present.
Aspiring?
But I would make the point very strongly that we must ask ourselves the question: dual mandate for what? And direct elections for what purpose? Are we going to have this very expensive superstructure under which Deputy Thornley and his colleagues would be consulted in a very low key, almost subterranean level, now and again by the Council of Ministers and express a rather belated consultative view on, for example, the subsidy that should be paid for a particular size of fish head or something like that? They get back their view, the Council of Ministers notes the view of the European Parliament, and that is just about it. If we are to raise the status of the European Parliament, if we are to ensure that the current political and economic dominance of the Council of Ministers is to be counterbalanced, we must be prepared to take that kind of political initiative—and which I think we as a committee could bring very much to the notice of all parties. Unless we are prepared to do that, we are going to continue sending out—I do not know how one would describe the members of the European Parliament—a regular ten soccer team every three or four years to work which, when one strips it of all the magnificent public relations efforts, not of outsiders but internally, when one strips all the verbiage and multi-translation of multi-committee work from the actual content of what is going on, one finds very little executive, constitutional, real power with the European Parliament.
In relation to the matter of the dual mandate, I believe we cannot afford in this country to have a third House of the Oireachtas. It is questionable as to whether or not we should have a second House. I do believe that members of the European Parliament must be Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas; they must be democratically responsible to our people. I think that can be achieved, whatever way one marries their role with that of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It may require constitutional amendments here which I shall be quite willing to support. But I hold the view very firmly that we do not want regional political virgins knocking around this country, ten or 12 of them, trotting off to the European Parliament, responsible to nobody but some provincial electorate every six, seven or ten years. We have to ensure that the national Legislature, the Dáil and Seanad—and the Seanad is only mildly democratic as it is, but we will reform that in time—is democratic. On that basis I hold the view very strongly that there should be a substantial involvement of such Members in the Houses of the Oireachtas. I am not entirely convinced that it is absolutely impossible for a Deputy or a Senator to operate a dual mandate. For example, it is easier to get from Dublin to Brussels than it is from Dublin to Donegal.
But unfortunately we are not in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg either.
In time we will get them working in Brussels more centrally, rather than having this nonsensical travel between Luxembourg and Strasbourg. In time, Mr. Chairman, when we see the hard-nosed British Labour Party and Conservative delegates to the European Parliament straighten them out with regard to this nonsense of vying between Luxembourg and Strasbourg.
I think it very valuable that we have this sub-committee work established with regard to the system of election which you raised, Mr. Chairman, quite correctly. I think we should endorse the principle of proportional representation. I suppose that will be of no great difficulty to this Committee, knowing the views of the Members. I believe that regional proportional representation is the correct system of election. I would also make the point that candidates must be politicians, not some sort of corporate-state-rural Irelanders, if you know what I mean, representing us in the European Parliament. I would suggest they should be members of political parties, going forward on a political basis, to the European Parliament.
Does the Deputy define a politician as a person who is a member of a political party?
Senator Robinson will be joining the Labour Party before she knows where she is. Those are simply my initial reactions on the various matters before us.
Deputy B. Desmond is in favour of referring it to a sub-committee?
Oh, yes, absolutely.
My colleague, Deputy B. Desmond, in his usual witty way, has made my blood boil. According to him, it is so easy to go to Strasbourg. If he only knew what it was like. You change twice to go to Luxembourg; you change twice to go to Strasbourg and you can get a direct flight only to Brussels. I am going to a Socialist Group meeting in Paris tomorrow. Most of my intellectual life is spent sitting in airports, waiting for connections, trying, with my rather fractured French—which is the second best French of the delegation—to find out whether I am coming or going. Sometimes I arrive at group meetings where some gentleman comes along and says to me: " Give me a documentation en fran�ais " and I say: " Excusez-moi, Monsieur, donnez-moi, s'il vous pl�it, en Anglais ". He says: " C'est ne pas possible; non, en Anglais ". Then I say: " En fran�ais, s'il vous pl�it ". Then I read the document en francais and I realise some guy is talking but the instantaneous translation system is not working. I know this sounds flippant but it is not; it is true. The instantaneous translation system is not working and somebody is talking in French about the length of jugger-nauts that will be allowed on Irish roads.
Perhaps this would be more appropriate to a sub-committee.
It might be more appropriate to a sub-committee. But, through you, Mr. Chairman, Deputy B. Desmond talks about hard-nosed English Tories and Labourites, but he is a typical example of somebody who wants it both ways. He says, in effect, that the Parliament is only a joke, that Deputy Thornley is consulted only in a sort of subliminal way in between meetings of the Council. He says the Parliament has no power. You cannot have it both ways. People argue the Parliament should have no power because there are no direct elections and then they say there should be no direct elections because it has no powers.
It should have both.
This is a vicious circle. It is the hen and egg argument. Within the last year the Parliament has won substantial budgetary powers and this is a very great step forward and it justifies the introduction of direct elections.
I do not know whether I would have time to attend a sub-committee as I would like to, but I would like us all to come together and agree on a system of election. I do not think this should be made an issue of party debate as to the manner in which people are elected. I honestly think my colleague, Deputy Desmond, is talking nonsense when he talks about proportional representation. The idea of four regions of Ireland electing, as I said before, people on the basis of 300,000 electorates, the problem of instructing the electors in those circumstances, reduces me to stitches of laughter. Personally, I would favour a straight vote.
A straight vote?
Yes, I would favour a straight vote. What I would like is for this Joint Committee to bring out a joint resolution as to how it can bring into working practice a system of election by 1978.
I want to bring our discussion to some finality. It seems to me that our General Policy Sub-Committee would be the appropriate committee for consideration of this matter. I shall give you the membership and then we can add to it the name of Senator Alexis FitzGerald, who expressed a wish to participate: Deputies Creed, B. Desmond, Dunne, Esmonde, Flanagan, Haughey, Herbert, McDonald, Nolan, O'Kennedy, Staunton and Thornley; Senators Boland, Higgins, Lenihan, Killilea, Robinson and Yeats. We have a very good cross-section there and we can add Senator FitzGerald, who has specialist knowledge, and, indeed, any other Member who would like to participate. If you agree, therefore, I propose to refer this question of the Convention on Direct Elections immediately to a meeting of the General Policy Sub-Committee and ask it to come back to us with a recommendation or a report.
With a draft report. I think we should do the full work.
Which would then, hopefully, be endorsed by this Joint Committee. I shall try to arrange that meeting of the General Policy Sub-Committee for next week.
Community Budget.
The other item on our agenda is the question of extension of the functions of the European Parliament in relation to the Community budget. This is a fairly detailed and technical subject. Perhaps again the best thing to do is to refer the documentation here to the same committee.
Senator Ryan
If we could find an excuse for giving it to another sub-committee.
There is the Economic and Social Sub-Committee. Perhaps it would be better to refer it to that committee. Would that be agreed; to send the Direct Elections Convention to the General Policy Sub-Committee and to refer the Parliamentary Control of the Community Budget to the Economic and Social Sub-Committee, asking both of these sub-committees to prepare a draft report as speedily as possible?
Agreed.
That brings me to " Other Business ".
Might I ask that you give your thoughts to the view that the best way to run this Committee and its sub-committees in the future would be to have people who are not members of the European Parliament as active Members of the Committee and to have people who were members of the European Parliament as ex-officio observers or something like that.
That is the de facto position.
We cannot contribute directly.
I am afraid that would be a matter for a very full discussion, because at the moment the membership is decided by its Orders of Reference and we could only recommend a change in them. It is something we might discuss on some other occasion.
Senator Ryan
When is it proposed that this Committee would meet again?
Our next meeting of the Joint Committee will be on the first Wednesday in April, but in view of the very good suggestion that Senator Robinson put forward that we should try and get some action on this direct elections convention while Ireland retains the Presidency, I propose that, if we can get the draft report from the sub-committee quickly, I shall call a special meeting of the Joint Committee to endorse it before next April.
Senator Ryan
The reason I raise the point is that we agreed last week that normally the four sub-committees would meet once a month and if this Committee is now breaking up for possibly a month, what arrangements are being made for the other sub-committees?
I have already set out the schedule of meetings.
Probably the most important issue on which we should seek to influence events during our Presidency is the question of Britain's EEC re-negotiation and referendum. A British Member of Parliament was in Dublin recently seeking information on what we think on various aspects of the EEC. I think it would be a good idea, in view of the interest it holds for this nation, if this Joint Committee got in touch with the Joint Committee in Britain to tell them, if you like, that, if we can be of any assistance, we are available to advise them in regard to any aspect of membership or in regard to the referendum which is coming up in Britain and of which we have some experience. I imagine the Minister for Foreign Affairs, at his level, will be doing what he can, and we should be concerned similarly at the Joint Committee level.
I think there is a lot of merit in that suggestion. I have already reported to the Joint Committee that I met the chairman of the British Committee of the House of Commons and had a very fruitful and interesting discussion with him about the way in which his committee operates, and he was very interested to learn of our methods. There would be absolutely no difficulty about establishing communication with him immediately on that matter, if the Committee think such contact should be established.
Yes. It is a very important issue.
The Committee adjourned at 6 p.m.