Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Dec 1993

Vol. 138 No. 10

European Parliament Elections Bill, 1993: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

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

This is a short technical Bill which deals with the following matters. First, it extends the right to stand as candidates at European elections to citizens of the Union resident here, in accordance with the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty. Second, it transfers a seat from the Munster constituency to the Leinster constituency in accordance with the recommendations of the independent commission set up to revise the European constituencies. Third, it clarifies and recasts the procedure for filling casual vacancies in order to strengthen the role of the individual replacement candidate.

The fourth direct elections to the European Parliament will be held throughout the member states of the European Union between 9 and 12 June 1994. Assuming the normal practice is followed, the elections in Ireland will take place on Thursday, 9 June 1994.

In these elections, for the first time, all citizens of the European Union will have the right to vote at European elections in their member state of residence. This is a major step incorporated in the Maastricht Treaty and one which we have been advocating since we joined the EC. Our electoral law has permitted nationals of other member states living in Ireland to vote at European elections since the first direct elections held in 1979. All other member states will now be required to give the same right to citizens of the Union, including Irish citizens resident in their territory, subject, of course, to the one person, one vote principle.

The Maastricht Treaty also provides that citizens of the Union will be entitled to stand as candidates at European elections in the member state in which they live. We are happy to extend this right to nationals of other member states living in Ireland. Section 2 of the Bill provides accordingly. The Maastricht Treaty envisages that the Council will adopt detailed arrangements for the exercise of these voting and standing rights. A draft directive setting out proposed detailed arrangements has been considered by the Parliament and is now being discussed by the Council of the European Union. I understand that a text acceptable to all member states is being finalised and the directive will be made by the end of the year, which is the Maastricht deadline.

As citizens of the Union already have voting rights in this country on the same basis as our own citizens, the directive will not require significant amendments to our existing procedures for European elections. However, some changes in the nomination procedures may be needed in order to cater for citizens of other member states living here who may wish to contest the elections in Ireland.

The provision of the Maastricht Treaty which relates the franchise at European Parliament elections to residence rather than nationality is something of a milestone in the development of the European Union. By emphasising the concept of a common citizenship, shared by all the different nationalities which make up the Union, it represents a significant step on the road to European integration.

From the practical viewpoint, it means that at next year's elections all Irish citizens will have the right to vote in the member state of residence. This includes Luxembourg, which, as we know, is in a unique situation because of its very high population of resident foreigners. Up to now only those Irish citizens living in the UK, Belgium and the Netherlands could vote at European elections in their member state of residence.

The Bill also provides for the transfer of a seat from the Munster constituency to the Leinster constituency. This is in line with the recommendation of the commission established earlier this year under the chairmanship of the President of the High Court, Mr. Justice Hamilton, to review the European constituencies and the distribution of the 15 Irish seats. This was the first review of the Euro constituencies since 1977. In its report published in June, the commission recommended the retention of the present formation of constituencies, subject to the transfer of a seat from the Munster to the Leinster constituency. Sections 6 and 9 of the Bill give effect to these recommendations. There will thus be three four seat constituencies at the 1994 elections — Dublin, Leinster and Munster, and one three-seater, the constituency of Connacht-Ulster.

I take this opportunity to express the Government's appreciation of the work done by Judge Hamilton and the members of the commission. Revising constituencies is not an easy or pleasant task and as public representatives we owe a debt of gratitude to the commission and, indeed, to previous commissions.

The other main provision in the Bill is contained in section 7, which provides for a recasting of the procedure for filling casual vacancies in the European Parliament in the light of experience since the present system was introduced in 1984 and in compliance with the wishes of the Parliament. The overall arrangement will remain unchanged. Each vacancy will be filled by the person whose name stands first on the relevant list of replacement candidates presented at the election.

The changes in the Bill are intended to give a more positive role to the individual replacement candidate and can be summarised as follows. First, the order of names on a replacement candidates' list must be determined before the list is presented to the returning officer and, subject to death, disqualification, etc, this will be the effective order for filling vacancies. Second, the Clerk of the Dáil will offer the vacancy to the person standing first on the appropriate replacement list rather than consulting the political party, as is the case under the present procedure. Third, if the person standing first on the list is not willing to serve or fails to respond within 20 days, the Clerk will offer the vacancy to the person standing next on the list and will repeat this procedure as often as necessary.

Under the proposed procedure a person on the replacement list of a political party in responding affirmatively to the Clerk of the Dáil must make a solemn declaration, inter alia, that he or she continues to be a member of that party. There have been suggestions that a person's membership of the political party ought to be the subject of confirmation by the party. This arrangement could put the Clerk of the Dáil in the position of having to adjudicate between a political party and a replacement candidate. This would conflict with the role of the Clerk in the replacement procedure, which is akin to that of a returning officer in an election. It cannot be his function to act as judge and jury in relation to conflicting statements. Under the Bill, if a political party is not satisfied that the declaration made by a replacement candidate on its list is correct, the party may raise the matter by way of court action. A seven day breathing space is allowed before a replacement candidate is deemed to have filled the casual vacancy.

If no replacement list was presented at the previous election by the relevant party or the non-party candidate, or if such a list is exhausted, the present arrangement whereby the Dáil may appoint a person to fill the vacancy from any list presented for that constituency will continue to apply. I emphasise that the selection of a replacement by the Dáil is a fallback procedure which is quite unlikely to come into play in practice. One of the objectives is to encourage parties to present meaningful replacement lists at election time in order to avoid any possibility of their seat being given to another party in the event of a vacancy. I emphasise too that there would be no obligation on the Dáil to activate this procedure; the seat could simply be left vacant.

The view is frequently expressed that a person should not be a Member of the Oireachtas and of the European Parliament at the same time. I have much sympathy with this view and there is an increasing realisation of the difficulty of trying to discharge the two mandates. It is interesting to note that 13 of the 15 members elected to the Parliament in 1979 had a dual mandate. Only two of the present 15 MEPs are also Members of the Oireachtas.

However, the relevant European statute which governs elections to the Parliament specifically provides that membership of the Parliament shall be compatible with membership of a Parliament of a member state. It is not, therefore, possible to deal with this matter by way of national legislation and it falls back on individual political parties, and, more significantly, the electors, to decide whether their members should seek to discharge the dual mandate.

The Bill puts in place procedures which will apply at next year's election. It is important that this should be done as soon as possible, particularly from the point of parties and candidates who wish to consider their position in relation to the elections. I would like to take this opportunity to wish God-speed to any Members of the House who are proposing to put their hat in the ring. I look forward to the speedy passage of the Bill.

Mr. Enright

I am disappointed that the election date has been fixed for Thursday, 9 June 1994.

There has been a lot discussion about giving voting rights to emigrants and I support efforts to devise a fair and equitable system with the necessary safeguards. Because of the importance of this issue, the Programme for a Partnership Government refers to such an arrangement. My party specifically asked for a system whereby emigrants would be able to vote in Seanad elections. This proposal is worthy of support and investigations should be undertaken to see if satisfactory arrangements can be made.

However, in regard to this proposal, we are continuing with the same process. Elections to local authorities, to the Dáil and the European Parliament should be held on a Saturday or Sunday. I believe the Minister of State, Deputy Stagg, stated this is also his preference. That is why I am surprised to hear the elections will be held on a Thursday. I ask the Minister to look again at this proposal.

By holding these elections on a Thursday, thousands of students will be disenfranchised, commercial travellers, people working on buildings in Dublin, etc., who live in rural areas and who would like to return home to vote in these elections will not be able to do so. It is outrageous that so many citizens are being denied the right to vote in the forthcoming European Parliament elections.

It will be argued that anyone who really wants to vote will return home to do so. However, it is important to bear in mind that on Thursday, 9 June 1994, many students will be attending lectures or examinations while others will be at work. An additional consideration for these people is the cost of travelling from the cities to their homes to vote. Will the Minister reconsider the situation so that the elections may be held on either 11 or 12 June 1994?

The Bill should include a requirement stating that from now on elections to local authorities, the Dáil and the European Parliament will be held on a Saturday or Sunday. Many students travel home at weekends and this would provide them with the opportunity to vote. It is unfair to ask students to return home mid-week. Furthermore, it places an additional cost on parents who already find it difficult to meet the cost of having a child at college.

Holding two important elections on the same day is another matter which the Minister should carefully consider. The last time European Parliament elections were held, the Dáil elections were held on the same day. Some 14,000 vote were spoiled in Leinster, a considerable number, and far higher than on any other occasion. Holding Dáil, European Parliament or local authority elections on the same day is a matter which must be considered. Some 14,000 spoiled votes may make a difference to the election of a candidate. Deputy Bell, a member of the Labour Party, contested that election and was beaten by ten votes after four recounts and one can understand the elation of Mr. Fitzsimons MEP. I hope there will be a good turn out for the European Parliament elections, but that there will not be a high number of spoiled votes. If there are two lists of candidates, it is difficult for elderly people, people with poor eyesight and those in a hurry to evaluate the worth of each candidate. I ask the Minister to ensure that two important elections do not take place on the same day.

The Minister referred to replacement candidates. I am dissatisfied with the existing and the proposed arrangement and I ask the Minister to reconsider this. The point I am about to make may sounds like a mother saying: "They are all out of step except my son John", but I will make it anyway. The existing system in relation to replacement candidates is not democratic or fair. In a democracy a by-election is held, although people will shy away from such an election. The last defeated candidate should obtain the seat rather than the existing system.

I accept that people vote for a party and want that party to carry out particular roles and duties. Usually a party decides to run a high profile candidate and somebody else is put on the list to assist them. People will vote for the high profile candidate, but if the person on the substitute list was put before the electorate he might only return with 2,000 or 3,000 votes. It files in the face of democracy if the high profile candidate resigns and is replaced by somebody else. That is not fair, equitable or democratic and the system should be examined.

Political parties are under considerable financial pressure so a by-election for the European Parliament would certainly be unfair. However, the list system is not fair either. It is up to the parties to maximise their votes and run proper candidates but, to be fair, equitable and democratic, the person eliminated last should get the seat.

I thank and congratulate the commission on the considerable amount of work it did in examining the European Parliament election system. I note that Leinster has an additional seat which I welcome because there has been an increase in the population. I look forward to a hotly contested European Parliament election.

The Government is anxious to have this Bill passed by the Oireachtas but, irrespective of the type of election under discussion, it must be said that two Dáil by-elections have been pending for almost 12 months. It is not right to leave seats vacant in Dáil Éireann and those by-elections should have been held by now. They have always been held within a short time of the seat becoming vacant but people in Dublin and Mayo are disenfranchised which is not right and proper.

The Government makes great play of having a busy agenda but, irrespective of its busy agenda elections are part and parcel of a democracy, giving people the right to pass judgment on what is happening in Government. People in the Dublin and Mayo constituencies should be allowed the opportunity to elect new Deputies.

This Bill will have our support and I hope to move amendments on Committee Stage.

Mr. Finneran

I welcome the Minister to the House. I also welcome the European Parliament Elections Bill, 1993. Under the European Assembly Act, 1977, it is necessary for the Government to review the situation and that is now being done. It involves updating a number of areas which is both necessary and welcome. Ireland has been ahead of most other European states in so far as, since 1979, it has granted voting rights in European Parliament elections to EC citizens resident here. Under the Maastricht Treaty other European nations have to follow suit but Ireland set the headline and campaigned for that right over the years.

The public are somewhat in awe of Europe even though we have been a member of the EC for over 20 years. I would like to see a greater awareness of European affairs and structures, and how Ireland operates within those structures, particularly at school level. European affairs should be taught as a subject at primary and secondary school level as part of a genuine attempt to make young people aware of the fact that they are European citizens. In the run-up to this European Parliament election, I would like to see factual information about Europe being conveyed via the news media and our schools. The leaflets from the EC Commission in Brussels and the EC office here help people already involved in public life trying to establish what is going on in Europe and how it affects the ordinary citizen. I would like to see that sort of information more readily available.

Senator Enright said he was disappointed that 9 June 1994 had been set as the date for the European elections. Perhaps I received a different script but in mine it clearly states: "assuming the normal practice is followed, the elections in Ireland will take place on Thursday, 9 June 1994". That means a decision has not been taken on the matter.

I agree to some extent with Senator Enright's contention that weekend elections may be appropriate. We must be conscious, however, that there are people for whom Sunday polling might be inappropriate because of their religious beliefs. I would not want to affront people who hold such beliefs. That does not exclude Saturday polling and when the final decision is taken it would be appropriate to consider that. It is not necessary to have such a proposal in the legislation because it can be implemented by ministerial order or regulation. That is a decision for the Minister and must be left in his hands. I have no doubt that the sentiments expressed here will be taken into consideration and if it is feasible then perhaps there will be a change.

Only two MEPs in the Republic hold a dual mandate, both are Members of the other House. One is a representative of the Progressive Democrats and the other is an Independent. In the 14 years since the first direct elections to the European Parliament, the major parties introduced their own regulations on the dual mandate. European law prohibits the enactment of legislation prohibiting the dual mandate and specifically states an MEP is entitled to hold such a mandate. However, this does not exclude political parties from introducing their own regulations to exclude such a possibility. We must be conscious of European legislation, which supersedes legislation enacted by the Oireachtas.

Under the Bill EC nationals will be eligible to stand in Ireland for election to the European Parliament. We have already granted them the right to vote. The number of seats in Leinster and Munster had to be revised to ensure greater balance and the Bill provides for this. Given that there will be an extra seat in Leinster, Senator Enright might consider throwing his hat into that lucrative ring.

Mr. Enright

Like Senator Finneran I am happy here.

Mr. Finneran

He is a man of experience.

Mr. Enright

We will wait for the next general election.

Mr. Finneran

A European base may be what he is seeking at this stage. However, that is a matter for himself.

Votes for emigrants is an intricate issue and one in which it is important to achieve a balance. Many people left Ireland over the centuries and there are millions of people of Irish descent scattered round the world. It is not feasible to talk about votes for emigrants in that context. Giving votes to people who have been abroad for a certain number of years would be more practical. Such a proposal will require investigation but the Government should consider it and introduce legislation to provide for votes for emigrants at some level in the future. The electoral process is being investigated and a number of electoral Bills were discussed by the Oireachtas in recent times. Such investigation will be ongoing and I hope we will debate votes for emigrants in the future. Fine Gael has no such proposal. Its policy is that emigrants should be entitled to vote only in Seanad elections. It is a limited proposal and does not deal with the matter in depth.

I welcome the Bill. It is necessary and takes into consideration all the aspects which need to be dealt with at this time. Irish people are generally thought to be good Europeans. History will show this was so long before we joined the EC. When people in Europe were beginning to have doubts about the Maastricht Treaty, we set a headline by voting for it which was appreciated in Europe. We have proven ourselves good Europeans. I had the pleasure of serving for three years on the Consultative Council to the European Commission and found Ireland was held in very high esteem by Europeans.

It is generally accepted that representatives from Ireland on the Euromis pean Commission have been held in high esteem. This is true of Mr. Sutherland and particularly of Mr. MacSharry. It was not by chance Mr. Sutherland was appointed Director General of the GATT. He obviously made a name for himself. I say this even though he is a political opponent. Irrespective of his political allegiances, it is important to have an Irish person in such an important position. I hope he will ensure that Ireland receives fair play in the final decisions on the GATT round, which, I understand, will now be made by 15 December. Mr. MacSharry succeeded in overturning the Mansholt plan 20 years after it was introduced even though very few people thought he could do it. If this process had been undertaken by Mr. Andriessen, the other commissioner of the time, Ireland would have been a net loser. We were fortunate to have people of ability at that time.

Information on Europe should be provided to ordinary people in addition to elected representatives and those involved in EU structures. Such information should come, in particular, from the Department of the Environment. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Quinn

I wish to make one specific point regarding the day we hold the European Parliament elections, to which Senators Enright and Finneran referred. We should hold these elections on a Sunday, the same day as every other member country, with the exception of the UK. We are visibly out of step with the other member states, except Britain. Being out of step is bad enough, but following the British approach sends the worst kind of signal to the rest of the EU. Many people in Europe do not realise we are an independent State. They seem to be confused between Ireland, Wales and Scotland and think vaguely that we are part of, or associated with, Britain. By tying ourselves to holding our elections on the same day as the British we confirm that misconception. We should be working all the time to destroy that misconception.

Our actions regarding Europe should always reflect two basic things, first, that we are a fully independent member of the Union and secondly, that we are fully committed Europeans who, willingly and wholeheartedly, embrace the European norm. Quite truthfully, in regard to the day we hold the election we are not sending either of those messages. Holding European elections on a Sunday would not cause any hardship or difficulty. For example, I do not believe there would be any religious objection. On the contrary, voting on a Sunday would be a highly practical and beneficial. There are three advantages which I wish to discuss.

First, because Sunday is not a working day it would be much easier for people to vote. There could be a much higher turn out even with a shorter voting day. If the polling booths were open from perhaps 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. on a Sunday, more people would vote than between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. as it is at the moment, usually on a Thursday. If we took the daring step of asking people what they thought on the issue, most people would say they would find voting on a Sunday much more convenient than voting on a Thursday.

Second, we would not have the ludicrous situation of closing our schools for a day or, as far as I can see, three days. My memory is that they are also closed on the days before and after the election. Closing schools just because their premises are needed as polling stations would be justified only if there was no alternative.

Third, if we voted on Sunday and closed the polls at 6 p.m. the count could begin sooner. We are the only country in Europe with such a dragged out counting system which does not reflect well on us. It conveys the picture of a slowcoach nation, a backward country living in another age, instead of a fully modern, sharp, fast moving country which is part of today's world. We should be taking steps to do something about that.

I am sure there are other advantages but even what I said demonstrates it is not a trivial issue. I realise that for politicians and political parties the key issue is who will be elected, who will stand and which party will win the most votes. I am concentrating only on that point because it deserves attention. It serves many useful functions for us to be recognised in Europe and I urge the Minister of State to give it some consideration. I admit I am not sure how he would go about doing this, whether it is in order. I know it is not in the Bill but there may be some way in which the Minister of State can enlighten us on this.

In regard to Senator Enright's point, I accept that the system of an elected candidate who steps down being able to nominate somebody else appears less than democratic. According to the logic of democracy, if voters decide the first three, four or five candidates of their choice, it seems wrong that one of those candidates in stepping down can pick a member of his or her own party to take the seat. It is a matter worthy of consideration but I am not sure if it is in our hands. The Minister of State is giving me signals which suggest it is probably out of our hands. I urge consideration of holding elections on a Sunday for the reasons I outlined.

Ms Gallagher

I welcome the Minister to the House. This Bill is certainly straightforward in its aims and wording and seeks to put in place certain provisions needed for the forthcoming European elections, which is a practical move. As the Minister of State said, the Bill has three distinct purposes. The first is to ensure the allocation of seats between the European constituencies. The European Parliament Constituency Commission published its report in June 1993, which recommended the retention of the existing constituencies, subject to the transfer of a seat from the Munster to the Leinster constituency. That makes sense in the light of population trends. The Minister of State is, therefore, providing for this transfer in sections 6 and 9 of the Bill.

The second function of the Bill is more interesting. It provides for the right of EC nationals to stand as candidates in European elections in this country if resident here. I welcome this as it is a vital move in our becoming full citizens of Europe. It is something which we cannot overestimate in the sense that we have always traditionally looked towards Europe in terms of what we could get out of it. We are reaching a stage when we must be balanced and realistic about it, it involves giving and taking. In fairness, our existing electoral laws permitted nationals of other states within the European Community living and resident in Ireland to vote in the European elections. That has been the case since the first direct elections in 1979.

This legislation goes one step further by allowing EC nationals living here to run as candidates in these elections. That, as I understand it, is a direct result of the Maastricht Treaty. It is a welcome move because, as I said, our citizenship of Europe works both ways. The converse, which has not already been referred to, is that all other member states are now required to provide the same rights to the many Irish citizens living abroad. That is a uniform measure throughout Europe and allows for greater integration in the sense of the European Union. It is a natural progression.

While our legislation is progressive and ongoing vis-à-vis Europe we, as Irish nationals, have a long way to go in developing our sense, as individuals and a nation, of being part of the larger union. It was indirectly referred to by a previous speaker and I endorse the belief that many people in Ireland view the European elections as something on another planet. Its relevance has not in many cases been made clear to people. That is not through any fault of theirs but simply because it takes place in Brussels and is something with which people here are generally not too familiar.

On that basis, it is important to have a broad information campaign for the forthcoming European election to give all Irish people some understanding of what Europe is all about and the role of our MEPs. There should be information about what our MEPs do on a day to day basis vis-à-vis where they travel, whom they represent, what committees they are on and so on. It is something with which I imagine even we in this House are not completely familiar. If that is the case who is familiar with it? Therefore, I advocate a general information campaign to give people a greater understanding of what they will be voting on next June. It is essential because we have talked about it for too long. The figures from each election show that those voting are traditionally the staunch party faithful and that other people do not bother because its relevance is not clear to them. That should be rectified this time.

The third purpose of the Bill is to provide clear provisions and procedures to deal with the filling of casual vacancies in the European Parliament, presumably, when a Member dies or retires. The Bill provides for a listing procedure by which the first named on such a list will be given the offer to take the seat and have ten days to notify the Clerk of the Dáil of his or her intention and decision. This appears to be a fair procedure. A person called would simply have to sign a declaration of membership of their political party to be eligible. The provisions would, therefore, remove any possible difficulties which might previously have required the Clerk of the Dáil to act as both judge and jury where there is confusion in such issues. I am glad that this legislation clears that up and gives us a clear and precise procedure for such circumstances.

The remaining provisions provide clear rules to deal with these situations. I am glad to see that this legislation rectifies that and gives a clear and precise procedure for such circumstances. The remaining provisions provide clear rules to deal with these situations and should be welcomed by all political parties and individual politicians. It clarifies the procedures and one knows in advance what one has to do.

Senator Enright raised the matter of the day on which we vote. I listened to other speakers address this issue, particularly Senator Quinn. It is a difficult issue because the needs of various sectors of the community must be balanced. People do not work on a Sunday and are therefore freer to vote on a Sunday.

As a representative in Cavan-Monaghan where there is a large Protestant community — I am talking in particular about Presbyterians — I know they would not be willing to vote on a Sunday. These people are therefore being disenfranchised. They feel quite strongly about that. A member of the Lower House did not put forward his name for election in 1989 because the convention was held on a Sunday. That is a practical issue that must be dealt with as well.

As a candidate in Cavan-Monaghan in a future general election, I would certainly be in favour of a weekend vote. Many people in my constituency live, work and go to college in Dublin and other cities because they have to. I would therefore argue in favour of voting on a Saturday because it would allow students and others to get home to vote. They would not then be disenfranchised simply because they are forced by virtue of their geographical location to move elsewhere. This might be an argument for decentralisation. The Minister should address the fact that many young people leave Cavan-Monaghan and maybe consider something that will give them jobs in Cavan-Monaghan. However, I will leave that for another day.

We must consider the various factors involved and I would not wish to offend the religious beliefs or sensibilities of some of our citizens by arguing for voting on a Sunday. It is a broad picture and a difficult issue. The area must be given some consideration but it is necessary to examine the whole scenario.

Mr. Dardis

I welcome my constituency colleague, Deputy Stagg, to the House. The Bill is not particularly contentious although there are aspects of it which could be improved. I will come to those presently. Overall, I would not oppose it on Second Stage.

I join in the thanks to Mr. Justice Hamilton and the commission who redrew the boundaries. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that they did their work in an impartial and proper manner. Some of the abuses in the way some other boundaries are drawn and some of the abuses we have seen in the past are manifestly not apparent in this case. The way in which the revision of the constituencies was dealt with is very good and should be continued. In the event of more population shifts in the future it would serve as a good model. Our thanks as legislators are due to the people who participated in that process.

There has been some discussion as to the day on which we should or should not vote. When we discussed the Presidential Election Bill there was an amendment, as far as I can remember, from Fine Gael which suggested that the date for polling should be specified as Sunday. Under that Bill we are allowed vote on Sunday and that is the way it should be, rather than specifying that the day should be Sunday. It is highly desirable that we would vote on a Sunday, but I would not specify in legislation that it should be Sunday. Such decisions are a matter for the commonsense of the Department of the Environment and the Government.

I accept the point made by Senator Gallagher about people in the Christian Churches. There are people in all the Christian Churches, including the Catholic Church, who would prefer not to vote on Sunday. I mentioned this point when we discussed the Presidential Election Bill. I went to the trouble of discussing it with members of the Church of Ireland, not the Presbyterian Church, to which Senator Gallagher referred. Opinion was divided on the issue. Some did not really mind at all and others, as a matter of preference, would not wish to vote on a Sunday but in the event of Sunday voting would vote. It is almost at the point that any day chosen for an election is going to discommode somebody. Saturday is the Jewish Sabbath and Friday is the Muslim Sabbath. There are Churches in the country other than the Christian Churches. Even though they are minorities, those points are relevant.

Senator Quinn is quite right in what he says. It is extraordinary that we continually find ourselves looking to the British model of things. There are other models on the European mainland which might more appropriately apply to us but which we do not seem to examine at all. Technology is at the point that I would imagine within a very few years, although maybe not in the next European election, it will be possible to have a result shortly after the votes are cast, even with our cumbersome electoral system. I say it is cumbersome; I do not say it is bad, which is not the same thing.

As one who contested the last European election, it is fairly excruciating to have the votes cast on a Thursday and not have ballot boxes opened until the following Sunday. There is an air of unreal suspense for the few days intervening. For that reason alone I would prefer that European elections be held on a Sunday so counting would begin throughout the Community at the same time and there would be no intervening period. I think I would be correct in saying that the Leinster result was the last result to be announced in Europe the last time around. So, even though we had cast our votes on the Thursday, it did not help us when it came to the result.

An issue to which we referred when discussing the Presidential Election Bill and which I would have liked to have seen addressed in this Bill is the need for consistency in the way the votes are dealt with by the returning officers. It was not satisfactory in the last European election. It was ruled in three of the four constituencies that where there was a 3,4, and 5 on a European ballot paper after there had been a 1, 2 and 3 on a general election ballot paper, those votes were valid. In Leinster it was ruled by the returning officer — as was her right, incidentally — that those votes were invalid.

There was a court case arising from that and the court found in favour of the returning officer. However, it is unsatisfactory that there is not consistency throughout the country in dealing with such matters. There was a clear preference, even though it was a 3, as it was quite evident that the 3 effectively was a 1. There should be a consistency in rulings on clear preferences.

I am not sure if it is a matter for legislation. Perhaps it could be dealt with by a consultative process involving the returning officers and giving guidelines so that some of these inconsistencies are removed. In the case of Leinster, it had a crucial bearing on the outcome of the election. That is not to say that the person who won might not have won; but, given the closeness of the eventual result, it had a fairly significant bearing, and again it was difficult for those involved.

Emigrants should of course have a vote if that is what they wish. It is the biggest single defect in the Bill. The Minister of State's party had a Private Members' Bill in the last Dáil which suggested that should be the case. I know it is still their party policy, but I wish they would bring their coalition colleagues along with them on this matter. There are approximately 630,000 Irish emigrants throughout the Community and they should have an opportunity to vote in these elections. I do not see any great technical difficulty about it. The election is being held throughout the Community. The same would apply to Presidential elections. They are held throughout the country on the one day and it should be quite easy for people to participate.

We should make our democracy as inclusive as possible. We could argue about the number of years for which people might be eligible to vote after they have left the country; but, as a matter of principle, people who have left within the relatively recent past should be allowed vote if they are interested. The argument is made, and it is a spurious argument, that these people could affect the outcome of the election. I can imagine in a previous time very eminent and learned Ministers got up in another House in another place and gave very cogent reasons why women should not be allowed vote, saying it was because they might have a very serious effect on the democracy which existed in that country. Thank God, they did have a fairly dramatic effect on it when they did get the vote.

Mr. O'Kennedy

That was not here though. Somehow the analogy does not hold.

Mr. Dardis

I respectfully say to the Senator that the analogy holds in the sense that it is spurious to say that just because the outcome of the election is going to be affected by a particular group of people they should be excluded from the franchise. My argument is that they should be included in the franchise and I do not see any reason why they should not.

Replacement candidates are on the list which will be supplied to the Clerk of the Dáil. There will be difficulties here. I can envisage circumstances where the first substitute on the list in the Clerk's office wants to be the person to replace the retiring or deceased Member of the European Parliament, but their party for some reason does not want that person to be the successor. I can also envisage circumstances where the first substitute might not wish to be the person replacing. I cannot understand the urgency of this ten day period when we can allow by-elections be held in abeyance for periods well in excess of a year, as Senator Enright said. If the person standing first on the list is not willing to serve or fails to respond within ten days, the Clerk will offer the vacancy to the person standing next on the list. There is a certain degree of urgency gone into the legislation and I am not so sure that it is as urgent as that.

I do not agree with the thesis that it should be the next person down on the list — in other words, that there are four seats and that the fifth person, no matter what party they belong to, should automatically succeed to the seat. That is not in accordance with European practice that, where the list system is used, the party getting the votes has the right to make the nomination. That is how the list system works. It is valid that the representation should be of the same political complexion as the outgoing representation, but I do not accept that it should be the next person down the list who goes forward. In an ideal world there should be a by-election, that would be the best way, but even there the proportionality aspect would change.

Returning briefly to the matter of votes for emigrants, I think I am correct in saying that that would involve a change to the Principal Act. There is a difficulty about that, but we have frequently in other legislation made amendments to the Principal Act when we were bringing through related legislation, so it should be possible in this case.

I agree with some of the points Senator Finneran made in regard to the fact that there will be serious difficulties in the years ahead in regard to the whole institutional framework. What will happen when the European Union is enlarged? Will we get to the point where we have a European Parliament of 1,000 Members and Ireland has 15 at best? If some people had their way it would be less. I accept what you said, Sir, about the fact that we have used our influence very well, both in the European Parliament, at Commission level and in the other fora that are available to us in Europe. It would be a major struggle for us to maintain that influence in the circumstances which we might envisage in the future where the Scandinavian countries, Austria, maybe eventually Hungary and Poland accede to the European Union. This is perhaps not directly related to the Bill, but it is related to the European Parliament and to its composition.

Under Maastricht, the Parliament has a much more meaningful role and will become more relevant to the lives of people in this country. Some speakers made the point that the Parliament is at a remove from us. It is certainly isolated; it may not appear to be relevant but it will become increasingly relevant under the Maastricht Treaty. Its obligations and functions are extended and we need to bear that in mind.

As to the so-called information deficit, the European Parliament office, the European Commission office and the Department of the Environment circulate literature in the country in an attempt to help people understand how the institutions work. There is more a comprehension deficit than an information deficit, if I may use that phrase. We are deluged with information, particularly coming up to the elections, but it is not in language which is easily understood. A Euro-jargon has developed which is making it difficult for the average citizen to understand what is going on in Europe.

I appeal to the people who are involved at European Parliament and Commission level to translate these documents and leaflets into a language which is readily understood by the vast majority of the people in this country, because it is getting worse rather than better. I am sure the Commission and Parliament are aware of this, but being aware of it does not seem to have done a lot to improve the situation. If we are to make the Parliament and the institutions of the European Union relevant to everybody, as we should now that we all are European citizens and share a common European heritage, that matter needs to be addressed with some urgency. The relevance under Maastricht will not be so readily apparent if we do not make some effort to let people know what is happening.

In regard to the dual mandate, which was referred to by you, Sir, when you spoke, my party has certain regulations about that particular matter and I am sure that it will be dealt with before we come to the next election. We have never said that people should not hold the two offices; we have said that a decision should be made by the next election. I cannot speculate as to the outcome of the present discussions about that, but there are people who are very effective Members of the European Parliament who hold a dual mandate. Mr. Hume would be considered one of them. Given his burden of work, it is remarkable that he makes such a contribution to both Houses of which he is a Member, the European Parliament and Westminster. The same could be said of Mr. Paisley, who is a Member of both Houses.

In terms of relevance, the media have some case to answer here, just as they sometimes have a case to answer in the case of Seanad Éireann. The question could be asked whether it is up to the institution to make itself relevant so that the media becomes interested in it or whether the media should be interested in it because it is such an important institution. I do not believe the media gives the European Parliament the attention it deserves. There have been some improvements in the past year or so in regard to television and there is a fairly regular programme——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Finneran)

Senator, you have used up your time and must conclude now.

Mr. Dardis

I was not aware of the fact that we were working to a timescale. I do not recall anything in the Order of Business which indicated that.

Acting Chairman

I understand it is 15 minutes per speaker.

Mr. Manning

I am sure there is not a problem.

Mr. Dardis

To facilitate matters, I am prepared to say that I am just about to finish.

Acting Chairman

I understand that perhaps it was not put to the House.

Mr. Dardis

There is a lot of talk about another European jargon word "subsidiarity." Some of the elements in this legislation are governed by European law or regulation and we could ask questions about the degree to which subsidiarity applies in this legislation. However, in deference to your request, Sir, and in the knowledge that we should not pursue this matter indefinitely and that the legislation is in many respects straightforward, I will conclude.

Acting Chairman

Thank you, Senator. My apologies to you regarding that matter.

Mr. O'Kennedy

As the primary purpose of this Bill is to revise the allocation of seats for the election of representatives to the European Parliament, I want to return to a point I made here in relation to Northern Ireland and its representation in the European Parliament. This could be an occasion for a dramatic gesture of goodwill if, by agreement with the British Government, the revision we are talking about here, which is presumably also being dealt with in Westminster, was extended to the whole of Ireland. At present the Republic has 15 seats in the European Parliament while Northern Ireland, with almost half the population, has only three seats. I stress that this distortion is not a consequence of any discrimination on the part of the Government and much less of the people of the Republic. It is a consequence of the allocation of seats to the North of Ireland in proportion to the population there with the rest of the United Kingdom.

The North of Ireland is disadvantaged. It has suffered because of this discrimination, as it has by virtue of its lack of representation in any meaningful way at the Commission and its lack of presence at the Council of Minister in the European Union. If we are to pursue a common cause in the common interest of all the people of Ireland in terms of the impact on them of European decisions, this is an area which holds great opportunity for review and adjustment.

The North of Ireland and the Republic have much in common in relation to all of the issues that come before the European Parliament, such as agriculture, regional development, employment programmes, infrastructure, environment, education, training and, above all else, actions to counter unemployment. There is much more in common between the North and the Republic than the North and the rest of the United Kingdom. One does not just have to underline this in practical physical terms; but, clearly, Derry city and the Glens of Antrim have much more in common with Donegal and the Malin Peninsula than, we must admit, the Malin Peninsula has with Ballyconneely in west Connemara.

If we are talking about real regional representation, this opportunity could arise for a dramatic review of the representation of the whole island in the European Parliament. It hardly needs to be said that Strabane and Ballycastle have more in common in terms of major European issues — and I have dealt with many of them over the years — with Monaghan and Cavan than with Birmingham, London or Devon. If the European Parliament is to be a meaningful, effective representation of the interests — as we often say in the European jargon Senator Dardis referred to — of the regions and of the peoples, and if we want to make it relevant, this is an opportunity to do so.

We must welcome the surge of support for peace, co-operation and harmony which is evident throughout Britain and Ireland. Once a peace is achieved — and hopefully it will be — it can only be secured by pursuing our common interests with a common purpose through whatever structures are agreed, as the Taoiseach and Tánaiste have said, particularly in those areas that directly affect the lives and wellbeing of our citizens every day. As an example, is it not ludicrous that in regard to the competition role of the European Community, that it would introduce legislation or regulations to protect one part of Ireland from the other against what it would see as undue support in one part of Ireland? However, if we were all pursuing one common interest in favour of the huge potential of this island across the range of areas, such a distortion would not arise. From my experience over a considerable number of years I can say that our European partners would warmly welcome such an understanding on the part of both Governments.

In this regard a major gesture from the Republic in the first instance — as it has always said that it wants to prove its generosity and willingness to share a common purpose — and also from Great Britain in relation to representation in the European Parliament would be useful. It is ludicrous that there are three Northern Ireland MEPs who are being presented in confrontation with each other. When Mr. Hume says one thing, Mr. Paisley is expected to say something else and other Unionists something else again. That is ludicrous in comparison to our representation. That is not because of any discrimination on our part.

If they cannot speak for themselves as much as our representatives can — and I acknowledge what Senator Dardis has said in terms of the impact of those voices in Europe — we owe it to them to have our voices heard in their support. Such a gesture would have a dramatic effect in demonstrating our willingness to share responsibility with our fellow Irishmen and women in the North on all matters affecting our common interests, subject to whatever agreements and political structures will emerge at whatever time. This is quintessentially an area where we should be pursuing these common interests.

I want to return to something Senator Dardis said and which is clearly the case. Under the terms of the Maastricht Treaty the new Parliament will have greatly extended powers and, significantly, the balance between it and other institutions, such as the Commission and the Council of Ministers, will be adjusted in favour of participation by the Parliament. For example, the Commission members — and as one who had experience as a Commission member I can speak with a degree of personal knowledge — must from now on come before the Parliament for approval. They must have the approval of the Parliament before going to the Court of Justice for the formal entry into office.

That is a major new power for the European Parliament and it raises significant new possibilities. It is open to the Parliament to withhold its approval. If the Parliament decides that an individual nominee as Commissioner or the Commission in general is not in its view suitable to undertake the executive role of the Commission, the Parliament can under the Maastricht Treaty withhold its approval until such time as it is satisfied after further discussion, consultation, cross examination and exploration. In other words, it can put a stay on the new Commission coming into office. Parliament has always had the right to dismiss the Commission en bloc, but the right to approve the Commission for entry into office brings a new dimension to the balance between the institutions of the European Union. It is one which I welcome and support.

In addition there is a significant change in the relationship between the Council and the Parliament and, more specifically, in what is called the co-decision procedure, which is being introduced in a range of areas such as internal market legislation, public health, consumer protection, education and cultural measures, the equivalents of diplomas and qualifications and the free movement of workers. That range of issues is of immediate impact for our people and Parliament will henceforth have a much more significant role under the co-decision procedure. I have probably served on more councils of the European Community than any other Member of this Oireachtas — Transport, Agriculture, Social Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Finance and I think there was one more——

Mr. Manning

The Senator has not finished yet.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Perhaps not, I hope not. In all those councils the conciliation procedure, particularly that practised at the General Council of Foreign Affairs, was nothing short of a facade. The consultation and conciliation with the European Parliament was not an effective exercise in consultation much less a democratic expression of the will of the people of Europe who elected those parliamentarians. I welcome the new co-decision procedure, particularly in relation to those areas I have outlined as being of major significance. These areas affect the citizens of the European Union in their daily lives and in their future prospects. I hope I am not misunderstood when I say that our Members of the European Parliament must be fully briefed and familiar with the regulations and directives across the range of these areas and also on their impact in every member state of the European Union.

The new Parliament will have a significant additional role, as shown by a quick look at the Maastricht Treaty, which does not go into detailed legal analysis of where there are other channels for expansion of power. One of the obvious new powers is that the new Parliament will have a significant role determined by the majority of its members for or against accession of new member states under the assent procedure of the Maastricht Treaty. Think of the significance of that in terms of the applications of Norway, Sweden, Austria and perhaps Switzerland and Turkey. That is real significant power. It gives the Parliament a major new role in the European Union and its future direction. It also underlines how well qualified the Irish Members must be on all these issues which relate to the well being of the people of Ireland and the European Union so that they can play a proper and significant role in the work of the Parliament. By and large our Members have clearly demonstrated that they have that qualification, but the new range of responsibility is much wider than it has been hitherto.

One thing that will not change is the fact that the European Parliament will still be the only public forum in the institutions of the European Union. As such it can greatly influence the public mood throughout the Union on a range of relevant issues. The Commission and the Council conduct their business behind closed doors. I experienced the procedures in both those institutions. Members of those two institutions devote much time and energy to giving, through their portes parole outside, their presentation of their dramatic contribution inside. That is, unfortunately, becoming a regrettable feature of the political relationship with the media nationally and internationally. The Parliament conducts its business in public and the press does not have to wait for a subjective presentation as to what major contribution a Member has made.

I recall asking innocently at my first Council meeting a number of years ago "What is the procedure here for briefing the press?" I was told in a cynical response from Gaston Thorne: "It is very simple, Michael. Henri [Simonet, then President of the Council of Ministers] speaks for all of us. That is, of course, unless you get there first." The practice of people "getting there first" has not, as yet, discontinued. That is why the public forum, where people hear the truth through the media, is preferable to the distorted presentation to which we are subject from time to time. This is not confined to European politics. When I hear about "sources" I wish people would say openly and clearly what the position of the Government or whatever is. I was never well qualified in the sources business and it is perhaps one of the reasons why I do not have a particularly cosy relationship with some members of the press. What must be said must be said and one must stand by it openly.

This is where the Parliament is very important. Members from Ireland should be imbued with a sense of purpose, application and a readiness to research a range of issues. This is a full time job, very amply rewarded. Members can achieve major and desirable changes in a new Parliament. It is no place, and I hope it will not be a place, for casual travellers to and from Strasbourg or Brussels. It is to be hoped that the Members elected from all parties here will be the most suitably qualified and the most committed members at this crucial time in the interest of Ireland and of Europe.

Mr. Manning

I welcome this legislation and, like all legislation from the franchise section of the Department of the Environment, it is well and carefully drafted. I do not think any faults will be found with the drafting or the content of this legislation.

I support Senator O'Kennedy's very imaginative proposal. While in practical terms I believe it is now too late to make it a reality for the coming European elections, it is an ideal we should work towards as quickly as possible.

The European Parliament tends to work best when it deals through community and interest groups. That is the way it conducts its business. We are familiar with the briefing sessions and meetings held throughout the country and the travelling to Strasbourg and Brussels undertaken by various groups to put forward their points on legislation in the European Union. One very striking aspect of the way in which the European Parliament operates in this country is the disparity between North and South. People in the Republic can feel that their representatives in the European Parliament have some significance, that they are good at working the system and that the Irish case is better made for them in the European Parliament and in the Community than is done by the representatives of Northern Ireland. We all know that from talking to officials in Northern Ireland and the various pressure groups there.

Senator O'Kennedy makes a valid case in saying that it would be more appropriate that Malin peninsula should be represented with the Glens of Antrim rather than perhaps with Ballyconneely as it is at present. It is a case that would obviously meet with strong political resistance from some sections in Northern Ireland. However, I suspect that the Ulster Farmers' Union in Northern Ireland, the local government bodies and the professional associations would see that this proposal has a great deal of practical sense. I give it my warm support.

One of the great ideals for the European Parliament, which was established as the European Assembly when the institutions were only taking shape, was that it would break down barriers and be a force for integration. What better way to do that than by starting in our own country to let it work this way? Over the years I have been heartened by the fact that a number of our MEPs consistently developed relations with groups in Northern Ireland and have, almost de facto, become the representatives of some groups there or of the Government acting on behalf of Northern Ireland interests in the Community. I am glad to support this idea, although it needs to be developed. It should be part of the ongoing process for peace, a further means of integration and which, in a practical sense, is worthwhile for many people in this country.

Senator Gallagher made a valid point in her thoughtful contribution which has been made since the European Parliament came into existence, although it is not directly relevant to the Bill, relating to the lack of information about what the Parliament does and how it affects people. I said earlier that the best means of transmitting information is through interest and community groups, etc. The MEPs have been fairly effective in dealing with these groups around the country. However, there is still this comprehension gap for the public, to which Senator Dardis referred.

I do not know how to overcome this problem. Our expensive European Parliament office has all the modern means of mass communication. Perhaps there is resistance to learning more about the Parliament because of its distance and apparent lack of relevance. This makes it more difficult, it is almost the chicken and egg. The European Parliament office has been in existence long enough to take a very hard look at the effectiveness of its programmes and to acknowledge the gap between the desired amount of information about the Parliament and the current situation. Like Senator Gallagher, I hope the electoral process will be accompanied by — I hate to use the phrase "an educational campaign"— or an information campaign.

At present, we are talking about the democratic deficit, a well worn cliché. This party and other Members of the House have said on many occasions that it is difficult for Members of the European Parliament to find a platform in this country where the interaction of European and national issues can be debated. We should be allowed to question its Members because, with the prevalence of directives, the application of decisions are being taken out of this country. I and many other people have said that this House would be an ideal forum for monthly discussions which included members of the European Parliament. These discussions, which should not be formal, should include current issues and the concerns of those who represent national interests. This interaction would be useful for us, the Members of the Parliament and the public. I am disappointed that MEPs have not accepted this idea because it would be to their advantage. I am not talking about meeting midweek when they are busy because we are also busy at that time. However, it would be possible to have such a session on Mondays or Fridays.

The dual mandate was mentioned by a number of speakers and it will remain although, like Senator O'Kennedy, I see no justification for it. Being a Member of the European Parliament is a full-time and well paid job. It is not possible for a person to do the two jobs adequately because he or she will be unable to give 100 per cent commitment. The Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Stagg, explained in his speech why it has not been dealt with this time. However, the people are the final arbiters of who they want in the European Parliament. I do not believe anyone in this House is happy about the dual mandate.

I am glad the replacement process is being tidied up. We had a few unseemly wrangles in the past where, due to internal party difficulties, there was some jousting before the final decision was taken although, in the case I have in mind, the person chosen has been an excellent Member of the European Parliament.

The question of votes for emigrants was raised by Senator Dardis and a number of other people and my colleague, Senator Enright, has tabled an amendment on this matter. One could be a dog in the manger about this issue because the proposals in this Bill allow Irish people in the Community to vote. There is a growing agreement among all parties in this House about the need to find procedures so that our emigrants or recent emigrants, especially those who hope to return to this country, can vote in national elections. It might be possible to allow Irish people in the United States, Australia and places where we have embassies to register for the vote in this election on a trial basis. Perhaps there is no time to do this at present.

My colleague, Senator Enright, has tabled a number of amendments which he will move on Committee Stage. I support the thrust of the Bill.

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

I thank the Members for their contributions and welcome for the Bill. I will try to deal with the main points raised by them.

I have a strong inclination to allowing Sunday voting in local, Dáil and European elections. I was quoted in a newspaper yesterday as having said this. Government backbenchers have also agreed and the Minister indicated in the Dáil that he was considering the matter. Present legislation, the Maastricht Treaty and the European elections allow for Sunday voting. The dates for the election are 9 to 12 June, inclusive. There is no requirement for specific legislation because the Minister can, by order, make that decision. Senator Enright said he was disappointed that I announced the date of the elections. I did not, I said that assuming normal procedures were followed as on previous occasions, the date would be 9 June. However, no decision has been made by the Minister and I will convey the Members' opinions on this issue to him.

Favourable opinions were expressed about weekend voting. Perhaps there are objections, but there are also advantages. There are also disadvantages because some people leave their homes at weekends and this makes it more difficult for them to vote. There are also religious objections to voting on Saturday and Sunday. These problems can be overcome and I will continue to favour Sunday voting. However, the Minister for the Environment must make this decision by order and this has not yet been done for either the local or the European elections. As I mentioned in my earlier contribution, this depends on assuming the normal practice.

In relation to dual elections on the same day causing difficulties, a list of elections is promised in the near future. We have local elections for the sub-county tier of local elections, European elections, by-elections and a number of referenda. It would not be a good idea to have one election per day because money would be wasted, schools would be closed for long periods and there would be other disadvantages.

It is likely that the European and local elections will be held on the same day. In fact, the Minister clearly indicated that this will be the case. This has definite advantages because it will assist the process of information which has been referred to by highlighting the message regarding both elections. It will also encourage people who might not vote in European elections to do so.

The issue of replacement candidates exercised the minds of a number of Members. Among the suggested measures was that the person last eliminated should be chosen. We need to be clear about what we are doing here. There is List A, the candidates to be elected on the day and clearly attached to these, in an inseparable way, is List B. These are the people who will replace List A if they leave the European Parliament for one reason or another. The public should be clearly aware when they are casting their vote for candidate A that candidates B and C and D may take that place, the consequences of voting for candidate A means that only a heartbeat separates the seat that person wins on that vote from List B.

It is a requirement of the European Parliament regulations to put all the persons who may be candidates before the electorate. We cannot allow a political party to simply nominate a replacement. We cannot have co-option in the normal sense of what takes place at county council elections and we cannot provide that the last eliminated is the best person — there are many disadvantages to that. The system we now propose gives the candidate a superior position over the political party and that is desirable. If the political party deems it necessary to challenge that it is in a better position to do so in the courts than an individual and there is ample time to make such a challenge.

There may have been confusion arising from the fact that an explanatory memorandum is not reprinted after the Dáil amends the Bill, it is still circulated to Senators. However, the number of days available for a candidate to indicate whether they are accepting the position has been changed, from ten day to 20 days, by amendment in the Dáil.

Senator Quinn made the point, valid to a degree, that we should not imitate the UK and that we should show a more European stance by proceeding with the rest of Europe. However, not all European countries vote on Sundays. I am informed that the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands all vote on a Thursday.

The points by Senator Gallagher regarding the enhanced role of the European Parliament should be taken on board, including the issue of nominating serious people to List B by ensuring they are candidates with a real possibility of being Members of the European Parliament in a Parliament with a greatly enhanced role. It is important to stress this. I understand that the European Parliament information office in Dublin is organising a special campaign of information, to run in conjunction with the election campaign, about the new European Parliament, its new role, new powers and the systems of electing people to the Parliament. In this respect Senator Dardis's point is valid. We do not need information in Euro jargon, we need simple information in the language of ordinary people which they will understand. People will reject jargon as it is not the volume of material that is important, it is the format in which it is presented.

The large numbers of spoiled votes in the last European elections were raised by a number of Members. There will be consultation with the returning officers and guidelines will be agreed to ensure consistency in establishing what is a spoiled vote arising from two ballot papers being available on the same day.

The issue of votes for emigrants has been raised repeatedly. In the Programme for a Partnership Government there is a commitment to a referendum to allow votes for emigrants. How that should be done is currently being examined within my Department by the Minister for the Environment. There is no constitutional bar to allowing votes for emigrants in the European elections, but the Government does not wish to proceed with this on a piecemeal basis because it has a definite commitment to it in the Programme for a Partnership Government. In this respect I repeat the commitment given by my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Browne, that, within the period of this Government, the necessary referendum and legislation will be put in place to allow votes for emigrants. I am unable to advise at present what format that will take because it has not been decided. There are various opinions, within and between parties, as to how best to proceed with this, but I can give a commitment that it will be undertaken within the period of the life of this Government.

Those are the main points raised by the Members and some of them are subject to amendments on Committee Stage when perhaps they can be dealt with in more detail.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Mr. Mullooly

It is proposed to take Committee Stage now.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Dardis

On a point of order, I do not wish to obstruct the decision to proceed to Committee Stage, but may I draw the attention of the House to the fact that this was not agreed on the Order of Business this morning? Yesterday the House started a debate approximately eight minutes late and today the House is changing what was decided on the Order of Business. There is a certain amount of “ad hocery” creeping in which should be resisted. Therefore, I put down the marker that I would not like this to become a regular feature of the way the House conducts its business.

Mr. Mullooly

I assure Senator Dardis that we try to avoid “ad hocery” as much as possible and that it will not become a regular feature of the business of this House. I thank the Senator for his cooperation.

Mr. Enright

Regarding this matter——

An Leas-Chathoirleach

I called Senator Dardis on a point of order and I do not wish it to become a general discussion.

Mr. Enright

Regarding this matter, I was approached by Senator Mullooly and because of the importance of this legislation and as a time factor is involved, I considered it wise to co-operate in this matter. However, I gave the matter some thought before agreeing to this arrangement.