After the last contribution I feel like someone who is trying to bring a sense of order to a pub at the close of the "holy hour". We are not wasting the time of the House; we are in Private Members' Time. We are talking about the representation not of the Labour Party in the European Parliament but about the representation of this country and of this Parliament in the European Parliament, a parliament that Fianna Fáil were anxious to drag us into in the first place.
Before I go on to discuss and support the case made yesterday by the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Cluskey, I would like to refer to a story that is carried in today's The Irish Times in which the journalist refers to a £30,000 a year seat being debated in this House last night. It is with some regret that I have to point out that that journalist has not got his facts right, because all of the ten Members of this House who represent this country in the European Parliament at Strasbourg do not get any salary at all, and I think the record should be put right in that regard.
The job of representing this country in the European Parliament is a difficult job at the best of times. It is an extremely difficult job if you have to represent Dáil constituents at home as well. There are very few people who would willingly take on the role and the task that involves something like 14 plenary weeks and up to 60 committee meetings if you wish to participate fully, and the system of the European Parliament is such that the committee work is absolutely critical to the decisions that are taken by the Parliament in plenary session.
Deputy Cluskey made a fundamental and detailed point in regard to the precedent of representation going back to the original group that was decided by the Fianna Fáil Government in 1973 on the basis of 50/50. The electorate have never had a direct say in European elections; they will have one officially within six months, but realistically probably some date later on. Until such time—and we are only talking of a period of a year or at the maximum 18 months—I would like the Fianna Fáil Party and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who is welcome here tonight, to state what specifically has changed since Fianna Fáil were last in office in 1973, since Fianna Fáil were in Opposition, since Fianna Fáil have come back now, that would warrant a change in this representation during this interim period of about 18 months until the European elections.
I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that point, because I was very interested to hear what the Minister had to say in the debate on the Bill for the direct elections to the European Assembly. Because on that occasion we were all happily in agreement on the necessity for direct elections, there was a certain aura of harmony over this House. Among the contributions the Minister made to the House on that occasion he said, and I quote from column 1263, Volume 300, of the Official Report of 26th October, 1977:
Our standing in the EEC is based on our wholehearted participation in the Community's institutions and our constant support for the principles of the Treaty. Equally we have always promoted the need for strengthening the democratic process in Europe, and to the extent that a directly elected Assembly provides a direct link between the people and one of the institutions, it can only be welcomed by all who want a truly democratic European Community.
Further on in the same column he said:
It is necessary that there be a wholehearted commitment by all parties to direct elections.
We agreed with him. We did not oppose that Bill. We did not put on any amendments to it. As a spokesman of the party, I said that if they wanted to bring in the Committee Stage we would agree to that and to get it through, because we want to see European elections taking place and we want to see the European Parliament democratised, and to win back for the sovereign people of Ireland some of the democratic powers that were ceded by them when they went into the European Assembly. But until such time as there are direct elections, we say that the precedent that was established in this House in 1973, not by us, not by Fine Gael but by Fianna Fáil, should be maintained and that there should be 50 per cent representation for both sides of the House.
I would go further to say that my colleague, Deputy Kavanagh, is a member of that Parliament and can explain, if he so chooses, the way in which the committee structure of the Parliament is far more important than it is in this House. However, the referendum that was quoted in the same speech made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 26th October referred to the 83 per cent of the people who voted to join the EEC, and obviously of those who voted, 17 per cent voted against. Therefore 17 per cent of the electorate of this country voted against the Common Market and an increasing number have shown, in terms of opinion poll surveys, if one can accept those as being an indication, their reluctance to accept the Community and its institutions and the effect of the Common Market on this country.
Fianna Fáil are now saying to the House and to the country that the 17 per cent who voted against the referendum are henceforth not entitled to 20 per cent representation in the European Parliament. Henceforth, they are not entitled to two people to be there so that one person can be off sick and, unfortunately, Deputy Killilea, some people do get sick and some do not enjoy the same good health that others enjoy. Henceforth these people will only have 10 per cent representation. That is democracy. OK, you have the divisions, you have the tax, you have the panzers and why stop at that? You can roll in any amendment you like. Why stop at six? Why not seven? Round it off. Go metric. Why not ten? You won the election. Winner takes all. Why six? You have broken a precedent.
