Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities debate -
Wednesday, 4 Jun 1975

Direct Elections to the European Parliament.

Chairman

As we have a quorum and we have a very heavy agenda we will begin. Apologies for inability to attend have been received from Deputies Collins and Fitzgerald. The minutes of our last meeting have been circulated to you and I have received them as well. The first item on the agenda is consideration of the Draft Report on Direct Elections to the European Parliament.

I would like at the outset to say a brief word about the Draft Report on Direct Elections to the European Parliament in principle. It is important that we should make a report—I think I would be right in saying that—as an all-Party Committee of both Houses. I do not think any individual member of the Committee need feel that he is in any way committing his party by agreeing to the adoption of the report by the Committee. I should think it is perfectly valid for us to deal with this report at this stage in a completely non-party manner, and then of course each individual member of the Committee as a member of his party can express his separate party view when the matter comes before the Dáil or Seanad. I should like to make clear, therefore, that no member of the Committee need feel he is committing his party or group to the contents of the report if the Committee adopt it. We can proceed with our examination of the draft report on that basis.

Are we agreed to take the draft report before us into consideration?

Agreed.

Chairman

The best thing is to consider the report, paragraph by paragraph. No amendments have been submitted but if any member wishes he can propose amendments as we go along.

Paragraph 1 is largely a recital of the basic position in the Treaty. Paragraph 2 outlines the action taken by the European Parliament. Paragraph 3 deals with the decision of the Heads of Government at the Paris summit in December, 1974, and it notes that there were reservations made by the United Kingdom and Denmark.

Paragraph 4 deals with the provisions of the Draft Convention and, of course, the key to the provisions from our point of view is that, under the Draft Convention, we would have 13 representatives in a parliament of 355. That compares with ten representatives in the present parliament of 198.

Paragraph 5 sets out the situation in regard to our jurisdiction in the consideration of this matter. We have decided, with some justification, to take notice of the situation and report on it. That action by us has been approved by the Minister for Foreign Affairs who has referred, with approval in the Dáil, to our consideration of this matter. As members of the sub-committee know, we had the valuable assistance of Professor Chubb in our examination and discussions. That acknowledgment is contained in paragraph 6.

Paragraph 7 sets out the aspects of the matter which we have considered and we have indicated that there are other aspects on which decisions will have to be taken. For the present, we regard it as sufficient if we report on three matters: (1) proposed Irish representation; (2) method of election and (3) the dual membership question.

Paragraphs 1 to 7 agreed to.

Chairman

In paragraph 8 we look in some detail at the level of Irish representation proposed. Our original representation of ten out of 198 was the equivalent of 5 per cent. Thirteen seats out of 355 reduces that 5 per cent to 3.7 per cent. I do not think the absolute level of percentages is important, but what is important is the question whether or not the number of seats we are allocated will enable us to participate fully in the parliament and, more especially, in the Committees. From that point of view we came down strongly in favour of having at least 17 seats. Any comment on that paragraph?

Deputy Esmonde

We are still losing out on that. When we entered the European Parliament, after the referendum, we had a mandate to enter on a certain basis and that was that we have a representation of 5 per cent. We are not holding that with 17 seats and the minimum should be 18. I am concerned that the balance is in favour of the larger countries. I have made calculations and I find that two-thirds of the voting strength will be controlled by four countries. Instead of this being a parliament controlled by nine nations, it will be virtually controlled by four—Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy and France. The other countries have one-third of the voting strength between them, as proposed in the Patijn Report. That discloses a serious imbalance in regard to the smaller nations. I know it is being done on the basis of population, but other matters such as area should be taken into consideration.

Chairman

The Deputy knows that it is weighted in our favour even as it is, from a population point of view.

Deputy Esmonde

I appreciate that but I feel this parliament is still too heavily weighted in favour of larger nations. It could virtually become an association of four nations. We have no strength or proper voice.

Chairman

Is the Deputy's proposition, apart from his general comment, that we should substitute 18 for 17?

Deputy Esmonde

As a minimum 18, but I am still not happy with that having regard to the small representation of the other smaller nations.

Senator Lenihan

I suggest we be realistic in this matter. We have a principle to attach ourselves to but the fact is that there is strong pressure for, literally, one man one vote. We voted in the European Parliament and we managed to carry our 13 seats by a two to one majority. So there was a sizeable minority who wanted to reduce our 13 further literally to one man one vote representation which would be five or six. We should be realistic and have our recommendation attached to a principle. As 17 or 18 gives the same ratio as our present representation it would be in the realms of fantasy to expect that we would get any higher percentage than that.

Deputy Esmonde

This might have been arrived at by parliament on the urge to get unanimity of some sort.

Senator Lenihan

There was a vote.

Deputy Esmonde

But to try to get some agreement on the matter. It runs contrary to the principles we understood on joining the Common Market that our relative voting strength should be reduced.

If parliament is to get increased powers our say will be less.

Senator Lenihan

I know that. The Deputy is pushing an open door as far as we ourselves are concerned.

Deputy Esmonde

We should keep that in mind. I am not happy with the general set-out of the number of votes allowed to the smaller nations. As I pointed out, two-thirds of the voting strength of the parliament, if it works on a national basis, will go to Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy and France.

Deputy M. E. Dockrell

It does not work on a national basis; it works on a population basis.

Deputy Esmonde

I do not accept that either as the position. I take the view that the Community has become very nationalistically minded; it started on the basis of economics but has become a matter of national politics. I express concern on the matter. It is a personal view.

Deputy McDonald

I could not agree with Deputy Esmonde. I support the view of Senator Lenihan because of his experience. In my own group we have 17 German colleagues; individual colleagues say that their Laender or State is twice the size of the Republic of Ireland and yet they may have only one representative. This kind of argument is put forward and, apart from holding on to the Articles of Accession, we do not have a good argument to go on.

It has been established that the Community will continue to give Luxembourg, with 350,000 people, the same representation as they have had. We were seeking to have our representation increased from ten to 13. Maybe we should have put on stronger pressure for maintaining the status quo in terms of percentages but our colleagues were not in favour of accepting that view.

Senator Lenihan

They were in favour of reducing it by five seats which would be one man one vote.

Deputy McDonald

We had quite an internal struggle to get our point accepted.

Chairman

Deputy Esmonde accepts that.

Deputy Esmonde

I am very grateful for Deputy McDonald's statement because it bears out what I was concerned about. We are being asked to make a report here and I shall persist expressing my view. I am concerned that the power is being given to the larger nations.

Deputy McDonald

It is unfair if the Committee are trying to have those of us who are on the European Parliament put into the position of supporting the establishment in Europe. That is very unfair. I have met that criticism before. I am not going to have it here. We explain the position as we see it. It is in this report. I certainly would not want anyone to think that I was supporting the establishment as such out there. Senator Lenihan will share that view. We are just reporting the facts as we know them to be.

Chairman

I think Deputy Esmonde has accepted that.

Deputy Esmonde

I accept that.

Senator Lenihan

The report refers to at least 17 seats.

Deputy Esmonde

I would not agree to that. There must be at least 18 seats. The status quo must be preserved. We have no mandate from our nation here to accept anything less than what we had when we went in.

Senator Lenihan

It was the one thing that we could latch on to—the status quo.

Senator Boland

What Deputy Esmonde is saying is that rather than nominate the number of seats the report ought to emphasise in stronger terms that we should maintain the status quo, rather than saying at least 17 or at least 18 seats. Obviously Senator Lenihan and Deputy McDonald are reporting the political facts of life as they find them in Europe. They have to accept that if that happens to be at variance with the thinking of those of us who are not out in Europe every second day that is also a political fact of life. If we do not like it here it is only right that we should say so here.

Chairman

The report says that the Joint Committee recognises that there are strong grounds for retaining our representation at least at its present level. Does that not meet your point?

Senator Boland

It might be difficult if we get involved in 17's or 18's or 19's. The emphasis ought to be on the status quo.

Chairman

Both are covered. We are arguing for maintaining our representation at least at its present level in order that every effort may be made to obtain at least 18 seats.

Deputy McDonald

Under the scale of population as devised, a minimum number of six was mentioned. I do not know what the scale was. We worked out the figure of 13.

Senator Lenihan

The figures are in the appendix.

Chairman

At the present rate we are getting one member for every 230,000 of our population, whereas Germany is getting only one member for every 870,000 of its population. Can I take it that Deputy Esmonde and Senator Boland will be satisfied if I substitute "at least 18 seats"? May I point out at this stage that the decision of the Council of Ministers must be unanimous? We have that in-built protection in the system.

Paragraph 8 amended by the deletion of "17" and the substitution of "18" in the last sentence.

Paragraph 8, as amended, agreed to.

Chairman

I will go on to the system of election. Paragraph 9 deals with the system of election. It examines the whole situation in some detail. I should like to make this point in general. Whatever system of election we decide upon here we will be only deciding on it for one election, because after the first election it is intended that there will be a uniform system for all the countries.

Deputy McDonald

That particular point is of more importance than the actual numbers. We will have to try to fight for an electoral system that is best suited to our own conditions. If there is division into constituencies and it is decided that there will be X number of population for each member of parliament then I think we will not even reach square one.

Chairman

As you see the draft report opts for the list system. That is perhaps a system that we would settle for. It has many advantages and also disadvantages, but on the advantage side I should like to mention that it would help us to move towards the system of election that is most likely to be adopted when a uniform system comes into operation. By adopting the list system we would be moving towards that new situation. Does anybody wish to comment?

Deputy S. Flanagan

It has certain obvious disadvantages.

Deputy Esmonde

Do I take it that we are talking about the list system taking the whole country as one constituency?

Chairman

We will leave that question open.

Deputy Esmonde

It is, on the advice given by Deputy McDonald here, the best approach.

Senator Lenihan

From the national point of view it protects our reputation that way and it is better.

Deputy Esmonde

Is Northern Ireland included in the Irish area:

Chairman

No. On that question on page 6 the draft report says—

The system would be equally suitable in a single national constituency or regional constituencies. As between the latter the Joint Committee expresses no choice but considers that if regional constituencies are selected, they should be so drawn as to give adequate representation to the less-densely populated areas.

We do not come down on either one side or the other insofar as one single national constituency or regional constituencies are concerned.

Deputy M. E. Dockrell

We point out the difficulties.

Deputy B. Desmond

We must make up our minds on a number of principles, and first of all there is the electoral system. Most of the 1.78 million people will be entitled to vote in the next elections to the European Parliament in 1978. On balance and looking at all the systems and having considered it over the past couple of years, I come down in favour of the system as outlined here, the list system.

Deputy S. Flanagan

Would you favour a regional system or would you have one whole constituency?

Deputy B. Desmond

I will come to that in a moment. We are faced with this position, that between now and 1980, the leaders of the three main political parties are going to nominate the members of the European Parliament in the event of another general election between now and 1980, or in the event of a failure to have European Parliament elections in 1978. That is undesirable. It is much too narrow. In many ways the democratic content of it is the least desirable. We should press strongly to have elections in 1978, irrespective of the political trends here at the time, and irrespective of the composition of the Government at that time. We should go ahead and fix our minds firmly on a date in, I suggest, June 1978.

Deputy McDonald

The first Sunday in May has been adopted.

Senator Lenihan

There is something psychological about having it on the one day in every country.

Deputy B. Desmond

Fair enough, but I think we should hold the elections in June.

The 18 members to be elected—it may well work out at 13—should be elected on a national basis. Are we going to throw up to Dáil Éireann as a Joint Committee the options of electing these members on a regional constituency basis, dividing the country into the four provinces? The criteria of less densely populated areas may be a dubious criteria to operate in the context of our ratio within the European Parliament. To try to operate that kind of system on a list basis is virtually impossible. Such would be the size of the regional constituency with three or four members in it that to try to list it, have the parties nominate on a regional basis and have single candidatures—that massive exercise would be extremely difficult to operate; it would be utterly confusing. I hope we could have a national system in operation. I do not think this would be unduly cumbersome. Inevitably, regional preferences for any candidates nominated by the parties would emphatically show up on the result. The parties would be showing political lunacy if they had all their candidates from one region. The parties would see a great deal of common sense in a national system. We should amend this report and not come down in favour of the recommendation:

As between the latter the Joint Committee expresses no choice but considers that if regional constituencies are selected, they should be so drawn as to give adequate representation to the less densely populated areas.

I would be in favour of the deletion of that sentence. We have to present something quite definite. We are not acting as authoritative spokesmen on behalf of our respective political parties but our report will carry a good deal of weight. There are 13 seats to be filled and the political parties could nominate a small number of candidates. That is not entirely democratic but it is as democratic as the way candidates are nominated for the Seanad, with respect to the Senators present. Of course, one has a national electorate of 1.8 million people. I hope we would adopt that system. I am prepared to support the report on this basis. Perhaps the only amendment would be the final sentence I have quoted. How would single candidature operate? How would they be nominated? Would every winner of an all-Ireland hurling medal in Munster decide to nominate himself for the European Parliament on the basis of being a well-known national figure? The question of independents would have to be settled. We would have to decide what percentage of the vote would entitle an independent to be elected. Would it be 5 per cent or 10 per cent? We should consider that also.

Deputy S. Flanagan

We have gone on a bit too rapidly on this. The report dismisses the straight vote as unacceptable. I find that very difficult to accept; at least to accept without discussion. The total electorate is 1,350,000 and divided by 15, it works out at a constituency of 90,000 voters. An electorate of 50,000 is not unusual. It has not been unusual in our history. I recall at least 50,000 and 40,000 voters in the old days. I am not saying I am in favour of an electorate of 90,000.

Chairman

I am just indulging myself in a flight of fancy, if I had a 50,000 electorate.

Deputy S. Flanagan

We should give some thought to the straight vote system before dismissing it out of hand as being unacceptable, in principle. Is it on account of the sheer size of it? What relevance to the present situation is the statement that as a system it was rejected twice in referenda which had to do with the national electoral system? We are not talking about the national electoral systems; we are talking about the European Parliament. A decision will be made as to what method of election will be adopted and it will not require a referendum. The fact that it has been rejected twice does not seem to bear any great weight on this argument. We should give more consideration to a discussion of the merits of the straight vote system, even if the area involved would be large.

Senator Lenihan

As a member of the sub-committee, I should like to say what was in our mind in coming to the conclusion reached. It was the importance of maintaining our national strength as a small country in a big parliament. This is more important than the numbers. If we have 13 or 18 single-seat constituencies we will have people elected representing their constituency as such as it will tend to take from those elected adopting national attitudes, being responsible to their national parliament. It is to preserve this duality of interest containing Ireland's interest in the European Parliament and being responsible to the elected parties in Dáil Éireann as well, that you can have that best achieved by having the political parties who are represented by the people in Dáil Éireann nominate a national list of candidates. You will then ensure that whatever candidates go out there, go with the mandate of the responsibly elected parties, the mandate of the parliament, the mandate of the people, and they will take a national view. Whoever is out there, whatever way political parties may act on major issues in the national sense seems to influence whatever groupings to which they may be attached in a national way rather than taking into consideration constituency or regional factors but taking a national view responsibly to a national party and to a national parliament.

Chairman

You expressed an Irish viewpoint.

Deputy Staunton

I agree with Deputy Flanagan's approach to this problem. I do not agree with his conclusions. The Deputy is right. In this document that is before us the arguments are a little bit spurious. For example, we make too much play in the draft report about the possible comparisons of functions of members of the European Parliament with those of the Dáil and Seanad in this country. There is in fact a comparison and I do not think we should begin to make the comparisons in page 4 which deal with the ideal of the members of the European Parliament having the same intimacy with their constituents as the Dáil members have with theirs. We go on to say that the Joint Committee believes that this may be difficult to achieve. This is nonsense. It will not only be difficult to achieve but impossible to achieve. We are not comparing like with like. I do not think we should dismiss out of hand the systems which have been considered largely in this country as opposed to the list system which operates in much of continental Europe. This is where I disagree with Deputy Flanagan's conclusions. The system that has been operating in the country has been proportional representation. In two referenda this system has, with all its flaws, been endorsed twice. If, for example, we have 13 seats in this country in my judgment I see absolutely nothing wrong with a continuation of the system under which you are going to have three, four or five enormous constituencies, containing the provinces of this country, electing three, four or five members. I do not think one would attempt in that situation to suggest that a member elected would aspire to representing such a vast area of the country with the same yardsticks and the same aspirations as a member of the Dáil. I do not think this comparison enters into it. You are going to have certain types of persons aspiring to membership whose views would be somewhat different.

Finally, we use arguments in this draft report supporting the list system, that such a system will be valuable for linking members of the European Parliament with national political affairs. This is not an argument especially true of the list system. If you operate the system which has obtained in the country to date you are going to achieve the same type of link. I agree completely with the other arguments contained in the document about the right of entry to the Dáil and Seanad for members of the European Parliament.

Chairman

At sub-committee level we laid a lot of stress—and I think we were unanimous—on the desirability of our European parliamentarians being closely connected with and seen to be closely connected with their basic political structure in this country. They should, in so far as possible, be very much a part of the national political structures here. We thought that the single-member constituency would tend very much to veer away from that very desirable alignment. Having talked about it and got advice from some experts, we were reasonably persuaded at sub-committee level that the best way to ensure the desirable contacts between the European parliamentarian and his home political structure was the list system. That was our main reason for opting for the list system. It also had the advantage, it seemed to us, that it solved the by-election problem. That is not terribly significant. Finally, it had the additional advantage that it tended to move us towards the system of election likely to be adopted when there is a uniform system for all Europe. We think that this uniform system will be a list system. We will be moving towards that.

Deputy Staunton

You have made three points about the system being the most appropriate, and you want to link in the European Parliament with the political structures of this country. This is not an argument which is essential to this system. That argument equally applies where there is proportional representation. Secondly, on the argument about the by-election issue, I agree completely that there should not be by-elections to the European Parliament. This would be undesirable and would lead to political conflicts within this country that do not relate to this country but rather relate to Europe. That is undesirable. Equally, I do not think you can argue that this is an issue which is only solved by the list system. If you use the multi-member situation that we have at the present you can have a situation under which seats of members who retire or are deceased are filled by the party to which that member belongs. I agree with your third point—and this may be likely the only valid point of the three—and it is that ultimately Europe may decide that the list system is going to operate right through Europe.

Chairman

The by-election one is valid too, because if you solve the by-election problem by the list system you at least have a very good democratic basis for your nomination in a by-election situation which you do not have by party nomination. By using the list system and going to the next person on the list his selection is seen as being democratic and publicly endorsed.

Deputy McDonald

In the second paragraph on page six it says that each voter would have one vote which he would employ by placing a mark opposite the name of one of the candidates on the party list. I would suggest that you should add "or by voting for the party". My understanding of the list system is that the seats are allocated in proportion to the number of votes cast for the party.

Deputy S. Flanagan

This can be upset.

Chairman

The number of votes for candidates in the party are all added up to give you the party representation.

Deputy McDonald

On the ballot paper there is a special box to tick if you are supporting the list——

Deputy B. Desmond

There is an interesting refinement if you want to crucify the particular regional candidate you are not supporting. I think it is a refinement which is not necessary in our case.

Deputy S. Flanagan

Which?

Deputy B. Desmond

By voting for the particular candidate of the party of your choice.

Deputy S. Flanagan

You want to cut out the individual preference within the list?

Deputy B. Desmond

No.

Deputy M. E. Dockrell

In our discussions we are apt to forget that the reason that this whole thing has come up is the fact that the members of the European Parliament have found either that they lost their seats which gave them access or that they were in obvious and grave danger of losing them. I am not referring to the Irish members at all——

Deputy McDonald

Trying to scare us?

Deputy M. E. Dockrell

It is not necessary to scare them. They realise that very much. After all people from Ireland, which is one of the remoter countries from, say, Brussels and the centre where they operate of necessity are now increasingly, perhaps, divorced physically from their constituencies. That brings one to the fact that we must have our Irish representatives, representing as large an area as is feasible for us to make, preferably the whole of Ireland. If not one runs the risk of getting them so influenced by local considerations—perhaps local considerations that have nothing to do with being in the European Parliament—that they would be so influenced by that that they would lose their seats to people who would pay more attention.

Therefore, we will be driven to as large an area as possible. The danger of going back to that is that our thinly populated areas will, of necessity, seem to elect fewer people to that area. The whole idea is that they should be divorced, somewhat, from parochial interests but not from national interests. Is that not what we are trying to arrive at? They must not be left in the position of, say, county councillors, who, whilst they are working away in Brussels, Luxembourg, or wherever it may finally settle down for good, are not able to deal with some local situation which would lose them their seat. That is the reason we are going into that. Whether we have a list or not is a very important detail. We must see that they are divorced from the dangers of parochialism and hold on to national interests.

That is what they are there for. This report succeeds in bringing that out. We place the alternatives in front of the Dáil and the Seanad.

Chairman

It is important to keep that in mind. After all this is largely a report to steer or stimulate a discussion first by the general public and then in the Houses of the Oireachtas. We are not taking the final decisions here; we are only setting out the range of options that are open to the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Senator Lenihan

There is a point which Deputy Barry Desmond made and it answers some criticism that immediately springs to mind, that is the criticism that all the candidates are going to come from the densely populated areas, and regions around the country will not be represented. The fact of the matter is that any political party that has any pretentions to getting support around the country will have its list representative of the country as a whole. Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour will, obviously, put people from various parts of the country on their list. That is what is going to happen so that in practice we will get good representation through the parties.

Deputy B. Desmond

That is a far more authentic representation than one which would inevitably be a gerrymander of the regional constituency structure. No matter what would happen if the system worked out poorly in 1978—and presumably this would be done by a Bill going through Dáil Éireann to have such elections—there is an appalling temptation open to the Minister for Local Government of the day to gerrymander the regional structures to make sure that in 1983 his particular party will come out better in a 13-seat election. One is elected to represent Ireland. The fact that one is from a region would presume to make one self-sensitive to the political nuances of that region, but one is elected to represent Ireland, even in the European Parliament, not a region.

Deputy S. Flanagan

I do not accept that a person, because he comes from a particular region, will not be a national representative, if elected under a straight vote system. I did not advocate that we should have the straight vote system for this election; I said that we should think about it. I do not accept that a person elected from the west or the south of Ireland would be any less likely to look at matters from a national point of view than somebody elected in a city.

Chairman

There is a great attraction in being able to say "my constituency is all Ireland".

Senator Boland

Other members can come and join us in the Seanad at any time.

Deputy McDonald

The European system is quite different to ours. It has taken us a while to become familiar with and master the procedures. We should endeavour—and I would like to see it written into the Bill that will set up these elections here—to insist that candidates have experience as a member of the Oireachtas. This is important because if one did not have the contacts one builds up as a member of the Oireachtas over the years and went in completely new into the European system that person would be lost and ineffective.

Deputy M. E. Dockrell

That person would not know his home ground.

Deputy McDonald

That could, possibly, be overlooked; I am not saying there is a danger. It is very important because one must have a strong base at home.

Senator Lenihan

It is all important that the people out there be structured into the situation here. We do not want 13 or 17 people out there who are away in orbit with no responsibilities back home to political parties or to the parliament here. That is a real danger. For political parties to select people for this and have them structured into the situation here is an obvious way to do this.

Deputy McDonald

So that they are au fait with the situation at home. The dual mandate imposes considerable physical difficulties. How, in a peripheral area, we are going to have the best of both worlds and have some regard for the physical capabilities of the members, I do not know. We should give a lot of thought to this and see how we could devise a system that will be fair to the members and ensure the best possible service to the country.

Chairman

To my mind this is the most practical consideration involved in the whole thing. Before we get to the dual mandate could I get a sounding on this? Is there a general view in favour of a single national constituency?

Deputy Esmonde

There might be complexities.

Deputy Staunton

I do not want to labour that point but the document has served a useful purpose in pointing out the problems and issues and it has come down on the side of one system. The system suggested might well be the system that is desirable, but the only argument that has swayed me in favour of the list as against the other is that Europe may ultimately adopt this system. In my mind the issue is entirely open.

Senator Boland

What likelihood is there that the list system will be adopted?

Senator Lenihan

It is virtually certain.

Deputy McDonald

France have their system.

Senator Lenihan

De Gaulle changed the system in France.

Senator Boland

What about Denmark?

Deputy McDonald

They have another system.

Chairman

A rephrasing of the last sub-paragraph may, perhaps, reflect the Joint Committees' view on the matter. Paragraph 9 amended by the deletion of the second and final sentences in the last sub-paragraph and the substitution of the following:

"The system would be equally suitable in a single national constituency or regional constituencies but having regard to the comparatively small number to be elected the Joint Committee favours a single national constituency".

Paragraph 9, as amended, agreed to.

Chairman

Let us come to dual membership. In paragraph 10 our attention is being drawn to the sheer physical practicalities involved.

Deputy McDonald

We recognise that the dual mandate imposes a considerable physical strain. We have of necessity divided loyalties. This is a cause for worry occasionally. As for instance, at the annual constituency meeting in March when we were under pressure to be in Ireland we had at the same time obligations to be in Strasbourg for elections. There is a period when one is very unhappy about having to decide whether one should be here or there.

It is necessary, if the Members are to be equipped, that they should have the closest possible contact with Irish political life. If I were a full-time member of the European Parliament that would mean that I should stay in Europe five days a week. I would have to find time to converse with my parliamentary colleagues on the one hand and with my constituents on the other. I could very easily become very remote. I do not say that in any lighthearted way, but one needs the contact with one's colleagues to be able to get the feeling of the legislation going through. One is also subject to the pressures that people in public life experience from their own constituents and the public. There must be a tie-in irrespective of what kind of electoral system there is. Members must still remain members of the Oireachtas party. It is important that we should not set up a new elite or people apart. This will have to be done.

Chairman

That is the whole line of the report.

Deputy McDonald

I agree with that. We must have even stronger party ties. What we must do in the redrafting of Standing Orders for both Houses of the Oireachtas is to have a look at those and take into account the position of the ten, 13 or 18 members who serve Europe and try to facilitate them. Perhaps if members were still to enjoy a dual mandate there should be a system of proxy voting on the home front. It is quite obvious that when the European Parliament becomes directly elected we should assume greater responsibility. The Treaty of Rome is quite explicit in the status it has given to the European Parliament. The parliament will become more and more important. We will need to have people who will specialise in specific committees and special sections of the activities there. I am presently working on a committee set up by the bureau examining the working conditions of members of the European Parliament. For that task we are studying the facilities that the various parliaments have, such as the Houses of Congress the Swiss Parliament, the German, system, the French system and the Australian system to see exactly how they work. We are trying to see the kind of back-up service that members in this new democratic environment will require in order to give the maximum benefits to the people they represent.

Chairman

It is very important that everything possible should be done to make life more bearable for the parliamentarian who is trying to serve two mandates.

Deputy McDonald

It would make them more efficient.

Chairman

The idea of proxy voting is very good.

Deputy Esmonde

That would require a Constitutional amendment.

Deputy McDonald

How will we amend Standing Orders? How will we get around these kind of problems?

Chairman

We will await with interest the report of that committee on which the Deputy is serving at the moment. When is it likely to report?

Deputy McDonald

We have much work to do. We would hope to have the report before 1977. It will very much be an internal document. The US representative can have a personal staff of up to 140, which is, of course, quite ridiculous as a standard to aim at. If one of our members were specialising on one committee——

Chairman

We have a staff of four for this Committee.

Deputy McDonald

The German delegation have a staff of three provided by the Bundestag. Each of our colleagues has a staff of three personal assistants. We will have to find a happy medium. The members who serve in a parliament with more power should be equipped to serve their constituents better.

Chairman

That committee can do a very good job.

Deputy M. E. Dockrell

What Deputy McDonald said is very interesting. As always he makes very pertinent comments. The paragraph on page 7 is excellent, with one exception. It stresses the difficulty and the link that must be maintained between the members of the European Parliament and the political structure at home. Towards the end of that paragraph on page 7 it says:

Accordingly it recommends that where a member of a European Parliament is not a member of the Oireachtas he should be given a right of audience in the Dáil and Seanad and in appropriate Committees of both Houses.

That is good, but we are almost approving of something that I think we realise is an impossibility. I would not like to see a member of the European Parliament representing Ireland who was not a member of one or other of these Houses. I think an appalling situation would result.

Deputy Staunton

Would the Deputy repeat that, please?

Deputy M. E. Dockrell

The last point I made was that on this paragraph we almost agree by implication that it is possible to have a member of the European Parliament who is not a Member of the Oireachtas. We are going to stumble on that. That would be impossible; he would never be in touch with local conditions. Deputy McDonald spoke about voting by proxy. The member concerned must start off with as big an electorate as possible to relieve him from the strain of small local conditions. He must, in my opinion, be a member of one or other of the Houses of the Oireachtas in order to keep him in touch with the conditions here. He must be relieved of some of that strain and that could be ensured by some system of proxy voting. That would relieve him of that strain and also would relieve his party of the danger of appointing a member of the Dáil and ruining their own voting. That is important too.

Deputy Staunton

Did I understand the Chairman to say that it was his viewpoint that members of the European Parliament should also be members of the Oireachtas?

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy M. E. Dockrell

That should be a sine qua non.

Deputy Staunton

It is a contradiction in terms suggesting, firstly, that membership of the European Parliament should not carry with it any constituency consideration. It seems that if such members are also members of the Oireachtas by definition but having to focus on these local issues there is contradiction inherent there.

Deputy M. E. Dockrell

They must be able to attend. They could be here but they would not be here as members of my constituency in Dublin or your constituency in Mayo, or someone else's constituency in Galway. Whatever they did in the Houses of the Oireachtas they would do by virtue of their overall interests as Irishmen.

Chairman

Paragraph 10 strikes a nice balance.

Deputy M. E. Dockrell

It does but I am not altogether happy about that part where it recommends that where a member of the European Parliament is not a member of the Oireachtas——

Deputy B. Desmond

We should be clear that paragraph 10 does not exclude members of either House of the Oireachtas. While one may share some views of Deputy Dockrell on this matter the base of nomination for membership of the European Parliament is already narrow enough to keep this document confined to the political parties. If we now confine nomination to members of either House of the Oireachtas we will finish up with the same situation as we finished up with in 1973.

Senator Lenihan

We will have to leave it to the political parties concerned.

Senator Boland

Is Deputy Dockrell not suggesting that perhaps those who are elected to the European Parliament would automatically have membership of one or other of the Houses without going through the constituency process?

Deputy M. E. Dockrell

Something like that.

Chairman

He is expressing a strong preference that he would like to see every member of the European Parliament a member of one of the Houses of the Oireachtas. I do not think we can go that far in this.

Senator M. D. Higgins

On that I should like to express a word of caution. As has been pointed out, that would require a constitutional amendment. In the event of a constitutional amendment becoming necessary then what one would inevitably do is that one would contrast the powers and procedures of one's national parliament with the powers and procedures of the European Parliament as they might be at that time. That might be a very unfruitful exercise and it is something we might well stay out of at this stage. The paragraph is well balanced.

Deputy Staunton

The paragraph is good and sets out a reasonable balance. I have two reservations. It seems to me that to be democratic we have got to allow dual mandate in the sense that membership of the Oireachtas aspiring to membership of the European Parliament should not be stopped. But in practice it is very unlikely. The conflict Deputy McDonald refers to within the individual is inherent in being a member of both. There is nothing we can do to solve that. It seems to me that this will be resolved by individuals who are aware of the problems and by political parties who might even put sanctions within their party.

Senator Lenihan

In practice it will work out.

Deputy Staunton

Deputy McDonald made an excellent point about a proxy system for elected members of the Oireachtas. What is happening at present where the voting system is concerned within this House has been going on for years. It is not something that happened recently. Favourable consideration should be given to the development of the proxy system for those who happen to be Members of the Oireachtas. The last point about which I have reservations pertains to what is termed the right of audience, taking up Senator Higgins' point. Taking the sovereignty in our parliament into account, it may be that one is going to get an imbalance creeping into the Houses of the Oireachtas if the right of audience is treated as meaning, what it apparently does, the right to speak in the Houses of the Oireachtas by members of the European Parliament who have not been elected to the Houses of the Oireachtas. I presume that this is what is meant by right of audience. I would prefer a more tenuous, more subtle relationship, a more symbolic relationship in the sense that I would allow members of the European Parliament who are not elected to the Houses of the Oireachtas the right of access to sit in the Houses, a symbolic type of link. But, in my judgment, it is going a little too far to give the right of audience to such members.

Deputy B. Desmond

Whereas proxy voting would require a constitutional amendment the right of audience would not. We are all right in that regard.

Senator Lenihan

It can be got.

Deputy M. E. Dockrell

I do not think we should be unduly frightened by the possibility of putting forward recommendations which would require a referendum. We have had them before.

Deputy B. Desmond

But it would be years by the time we get it.

Paragraph 10 agreed to.

Chairman

Can I take it that the draft report, as amended, is acceptable to the Committee?

Draft report, as amended, agreed to.

Ordered: To report accordingly.