I had an immediate feeling of alarm when I first studied the list of names presented to us at the thought that you yourself, as Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, should be a member of this group of delegates. I since learned from reading the newspapers that we may have a new Cathaoirleach of the Seanad in the New Year. If this is true it considerably mitigates the force of my objection. I felt that, unless this were the case, I could not in conscience vote for a delegation which included you, having already voted in favour of your being Cathaoirleach of this House.
We have had no official intimation of the state of affairs which may exist in January. The proprieties might have been observed had you resigned from your position as Cathaoirleach of the Seanad before the passing of this motion, so that in voting for it and for you as one of its members, I would have none of the problems associated with voting for a motion which names you at a time when you are still Cathaoirleach of this House. This is a minor point but it should be made with reference to the priorities of the occasion.
My main objection to this particular motion is not one aimed solely at the Government party, as Senator Mullins will be glad to hear, but one levelled at the procedure adopted to produce this list of names. The relevant Article of the Rome Treaty is Article 138 which reads:
The assembly shall consist of delegates who shall be designated by the respective Parliaments from among their members in accordance with the procedure laid down by each Member State.
It seems to me, on a basic reading of Article 138, that what we are being asked here today is to designate the delegates in accordance with Article 138. I have no objection to this House designating delegates. It is important that the Houses of the Oireachtas should take part in this process of ratification. I draw your attention again to the latter half of this particular Article:
Designation should take place in accordance with the procedure laid down by each Member State.
I am not aware of any procedure laid down here for the nomination of delegates. If one exists, it is obscure and has not been made public. What I am given to understand, unofficially, is that this list is the result of an agreement between the Whips or other representatives of the three major parties represented in these two Houses. If this is the case, it is quite obvious that what we have before us is not the result of a procedure laid down by the State but of a carve-up, an between the major interest groups in these two Houses. It is a carve-up, an indelicate word for an indelicate operation and my criticism is aimed as much at the Opposition parties as it is at the Government party.
I draw your attention again to the concluding words of the Article which refers to "a procedure laid down by each Member State". A constitutional lawyer might have difficulty in interpreting this section, but he would have no difficulty in concluding that it had not been complied with in the present case.
I am sorry that Senator John Kelly is not here. I would have been delighted to hear his definition of "the State". Whatever definition he would give us, he would not regard a small meeting of persons from the three main political parties in a back room as in any way co-extensive with "the State". It is for this reason that I seriously doubt whether the appropriate procedure laid down under Article 138 has been followed. I believe the procedure which was followed is improper. It may even be, from the point of view of the European Assembly, invalid. I would remind the House that the European Assembly is very conscious, like all assemblies, of its own privileges. It has the right to check the credentials of all delegates sent to its organisation. I do not want to raise a hare about this matter, but I would not weep any tears if the Council of Europe sent back a very stiff reminder to this Parliament of the provisions of Article 138 and asked it to make sure that they were adequately followed in future. It may be that the list of names which was produced by a more appropriate procedure—for example, that outlined in No. 19 on the Order Paper of today —would be exactly the same, but this is not the point. If we are to have adequate representation in Europe and if people are to know what this involves we cannot have any more backstairs manoeuvring before the names are suddenly sprung on us.
When Mr. Harold Macmillan resigned as leader of the Conservative Party in Britain many of us watched with some amusement, not unmixed with trepidation, the curious process of consultation which contributed to the eventual evolution of his successor, Sir Alec Douglas Home. The processes of consultations which have resulted in this list are no more decorous than the processes in that case. This should be openly stated and the attention of the European Assembly should be directed to it.
Having said that, it is only fair to state that we are not the worst in Europe in this respect. If we look at some of the procedures which were adopted in other Parliaments they are, in some cases, more creditable and, in some cases, less creditable than ours. One thing the less creditable ones have in common is that they feature a binding together of centre parties, of consensus parties, against smaller parties, more especially against parties of the Left. The classic example of this was in the case of Italy where the Italian Communist Party, although the second largest party in the Italian Parliament, was for many years, and until comparatively recently, excluded deliberately from the European Assembly. A similar position obtained in France where at least one party, who have 7 per cent of the seats, are excluded by the centre parties from representation in the European Assembly.
This shows that we are not the worst in the world. However, if we were to adopt a similar way of nominating delegates it might be, for example, that the Labour Party might find themselves completely excluded. That is a situation which nobody here would welcome. I feel very strongly that we have missed an opportunity to show, by a public and carefully scrutinised method of selecting delegates, that we are really selecting delegates of the people and not delegates of the political parties.