The opening speaker has 20 minutes, other speakers have 15 minutes each and the concluding speaker has seven and a half minutes. The discussion will conclude to-night.
Private Members' Business. - Dáil and European Assembly Membership: Motion.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann condemns the action of the Coalition parties in maintaining a policy of dual membership of Dáil Éireann and the European Assembly.
There is an amendment which reads:
notes that when the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities is being established the Government proposes to ask both Houses that its terms of reference should require it to examine again and report on the question of Dual Membership of Dáil Éireann and the European Assembly and to consider and report on the relations between the Irish representatives in the European Assembly and the Houses of the Oireachtas.
The motion speaks for itself. On the amendment, I am sorry that the Minister Deputy Desmond, has left the House because he and I were on this very committee in 1975 and a report in regard to dual membership was adopted as far back as that. It was a very far-seeing report in that both Deputy Desmond and myself amongst others made positive contributions as practising politicians to the real problems involved in the dual mandate and the impossibility of operating membership of the two Houses simultaneously and effectively. Time has proved the view expressed by the committee in 1975 to be correct. It is superfluous at this stage to have an amendment put down by the Government asking the committee to look at this matter again when the committee reported categorically in their report of 4 June 1975 in paragraph 10, and I quote:
Under the present Treaties, members of the European parliament must be members of their national Parliaments. The draft Convention provides that "membership of the European Parliament shall be compatible with membership of a Parliament of a Member State."
The conclusion was:
The experience of the members of the Joint Committee who are also members of the present European Parliament suggests that dual membership will, in fact, be difficult to sustain particularly when the powers of the European Parliament are extended.
That was in a very limited parliament in which the members concerned were nominated members, where the workload was not 25 per cent of the workload of the present parliament, where the membership was less than half the membership of the present parliament and where the number of committees has been increased substantially in the present parliament. There is a growing and positive view within the Community that some form of real function must be assigned to the parliament to work in conjunction with committees so that there can be real pooling of political views and Commission views within the Community to bring to bear on Council decisions.
We adopted an enlightened attitude in 1975 and the report is there. I see very little need for further examination of the matter at this stage because all the factual evidence and all the data in regard to the matter were collated, collected and dealt with in that report. There is no point in having the sort of padding that we have in this amendment. It is quite evident that the dual mandate representing two parliaments at the one time is impossible from the physical, mental and work points of view and from any aspect that one can care to mention. It is evident that the members seeking to perform the two functions in Dáil Éireann and the European Parliament are in effect not performing each of these functions effectively, and cannot do so. This is not a reflection on the members concerned. It is a physical and mental impossibility to apply oneself to one's committee work fully in the European Parliament in its regular plenary sittings and its much more regular committee meetings, to make a real and positive contribution that means something, and at the same time maintain membership of the Oireachtas.
I take it that the House is fully aware of the way the European parliament works, and the members here will bear me out. It is primarily a committee-style Parliament. It works very much on the European system in which very great emphasis is placed on committees. Committee-type work can be long, painstaking, arduous, a matter of detail and time-absorbing above all else. It requires reflection, study and research if one is to make a real contribution. In the committee-style structure of the European parliament if worked properly by the members to the fullest extent of their membership of these committees along with the regular plenary sittings that are running now at least one full week per month, apart from the committee meetings that take place every other week and meetings of the groups to which members belong on top of that, one faces a situation of either a committee meeting or two committee meetings every week apart from the plenary session that will take place right through a work week at least once a month. This is the sort of workload that, taken with the travelling and, in particular, with the precarious position of the present balance of membership within this Dáil, makes it absolutely impracticable, ludicrous and ridiculous in the extreme to maintain any semblance of dual membership.
I say this particularly in regard to political parties. The arguments that I am putting forward are not as cogent in regard to independant members who are in a special category. In regard to political parties, the two parties represented in the Coalition Government and my party as the Opposition party have a very important function to carry out in maintaining the House here, in maintaining the business of the Dáil and in ensuring that that business goes through and that people are here for votes when they arise and to make contributions in debates in this House. Members of this House cannot engage in the two processes at the one time. They cannot maintain the sort of workload that I have mentioned in regard to the European parliament and at the same time play their part within the political party system that is designed to make our democracy within this parliament here effective.
What did Fianna Fáil do about this? We did one very practical thing. Before the last general election with all of this in mind the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary party met. We had a full meeting and we are on record as issuing our decision subsequently before the general election campaign started. It was a specific statement that as far as we were concerned after the general election we would not allow any of our Deputies to continue in a dual mandate situation. The decision was that they could opt after the general election as to whether they would stay in the Dáil or continue in the European parliament. That was the position facing our members before the general election campaign started, before the writ was moved here for the general election. Deputies Davern, Cronin, de Valera and Lalor, four out of our five members, were faced with that decision. It did not apply to ex-Deputy Flanagan as obviously the dual mandate aspect did not apply to him. In regard to our four members, all of them eligible Dáil candidates, after considerable deliberation among themselves and in consultation with their colleagues within the parliamentary party, Deputies Cronin, Davern and Lalor all decided in good time to vacate their Dáil seats and stay in the European Parliament. They announced their intention to vacate their Dáil seats to us, the parliamentary party, and they informed their local organisation within their constituencies that they would not stand for the Dáil, that they would instead concentrate on the single mandate, the work of the European Parliament for which they were elected.
The former Deputy de Valera knew the consequences of her action. She decided, in accordance with a party decision, to wait until after the general election. It was made quite clear to her that if she was successful in the general election she would have to give up membership of the European Parliament and a by-election would have to be declared or, a casual vacancy declared, as the phrase is in section 15 of the Act dealing with this matter which was passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas. The former Deputy de Valera contested the election on the basis that she was seeking a Dáil seat. If successful in the Dáil she was going to resign her European seat by decision of the parliamentary party or, if she was in breach of that decision, she would face expulsion. She decided to run for the Dáil and, in the event of succeeding, was bound by our parliamentary party decision to cease forthwith membership of the European parliament. A casual vacancy would be declared and filled by the Fianna Fáil Party, as has been filled by the Labour Party in regard to their casual vacancies that have arisen since the general election. The former Deputy de Valera did not succeed in gaining a seat in the general election and has opted, naturally in those circumstances, to stay in the European Parliament.
That is the clean, clear-cut situation in regard to the Fianna Fáil Party, and is a responsible attitude in regard to this matter. It contrasts sharply with the situation in the other political parties. I am not referring to Independents. Three out of four Fine Gael Members are trying to limp along as members of the two Parliaments. Deputy O'Donnell, Deputy Ryan and Deputy McCartin know in all honesty and integrity that it is an impossible task to perform fully their functions of the European parliament and perform their functions contemporaneously and simultaneously in this Parliament. It is just not possible on any criterion that one might adopt. Deputy Clinton made an honourable decision to go strictly for the European Parliament.
However, the situation was compounded even further by the Labour Party which had a chance since the election to do something positive and constructive in regard to the dual mandate which was, quite frankly, becoming a scandal. I use the word advisedly. The Labour Party, since the election, has had four seats to fill. It has filled two of them from regular, practising Members of this House, Deputy Pattison and Deputy Treacy. The other two, former Deputy Cluskey and former Deputy Horgan, are not Members of this House. The Labour Party have two out of four who are working TDs in this House and also pretending to function as members of the European Parliament or vice-versa, working members of the European Parliament and pretending to function in this Parliament. The Fine Gael Party have three out of their four members in the same invidious position. We made the right decision and our five members are members solely of the European Parliament. The situation will remain that way as far as Fianna Fáil are concerned because we have complete party commitment to this.
This is not just a Fianna Fáil attitude. It is the progressive, considered attitude of most parliamentary parties within national parliaments and it is the considered opinion of all the groups within the European Parliament also that, to the greatest extent possible, we should move in the direction of having specialised membership of national parliaments and the European Parliament and should avoid the obvious anomaly of dual membership. To this extent there has been positive movement within the European Parliament itself and, of the total of 410 members of the European Parliament, only 125 are now members of a House of the national parliament and members of the European Parliament. Almost 75 per cent of the members already are specialists in the work of the European Parliament and concentrate on one job within the European Parliament. Unlike their counterparts in Britain, the Irish Labour Party have not followed the trade union principle of one man one job. The British Labour Party have adopted a positive policy in this respect within the European Parliament. Any member of that party who opts for the European Parliament has to concentrate on the work of that assembly and ceases to be a member of the House of Commons. The British Labour Party are adopting a policy of a single mandate. Most of the Conservative Party members are in a similar category. Most members of political parties who are working out the implications of this within the whole Community system at national and European level agree with this to the extent that only 25 per cent of the members, and that includes a number of Independents, are now operating as members in both the national and the European Parliaments. The trend is obviously in that direction. That is why we condemn the action of the Coalition parties in maintaining a policy of dual membership of Dáil Éireann and the European Parliament.
The institutions of the State here and the institutions of the European Community are being brought into disrepute. There is a way out. In the report of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the EEC, there is a positive recommendation that we can meet the obvious flaws and weaknesses by allowing for a right of audience on the part of members of the European Parlia- ment in this House. That is one of the matters recommended by the Committee in 1975 which I unhesitatingly support. It is only right and proper that there should not be a complete cut-off between the members of the European Parliament representing our interests in Europe and this Parliament. They should have a right of audience but not a right of vote or representation in respect of a Dáil constituency, but certainly a right of audience in this House or in the other House. That is a positive recommendation which I should like to put subject to whatever amendments of rules of procedure would be necessary.
This is a matter in which we should behave with a certain amount of dignity and decorum. We should look on it as a practical problem which has to be faced. We cannot allow this situation to continue. We can maintain a link along the lines I have mentioned by giving our European Parliament members a right of audience and, of course, they will continue to have the right of membership of our respective political parties. By maintaining that link through our political parties and through a right of audience in this House, there would be a sufficient flow of information and communication from them in regard to the European activities and a fertilisation of knowledge as to what is going on nationally and in Europe between the members of both the European Parliament and this Parliament.
That is a practical way forward. I reiterate that that recommendation is contained in the 1975 report. It is my considered view that, as a small country, it is important that our 15 members of the European Parliament of 410 members really function in top gear. Bigger countries, with their large bureaucracies, administrations, influence and finance will not depend, as does a small country, upon the quality, calibre and attention to work which can be given by members in the European Parliament. I am not doubting any of the members of the European Parliament in that respect, I emphasise that. There is nothing personal in this amendment. All these 15 members of the European Parliament could give that type of attention and dedication, as well as their energy and time fully to it, and represent Ireland well, if they were not also Members of this House. The effect, from the national point of view, of our 15 members can be maximised by their putting the fullest possible input into the work. That argument in Ireland's case is ten times stronger and more important than in the case of any other country in the Community and certainly much more important than in the case of the larger countries which have other areas of influence available. We must use whatever influence we have in our limited way to the maximum extent.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and insert the following:
"notes that when the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities is being established the Government proposes to ask both Houses that its terms of reference should require it to examine again and report on the question of Dual Membership of Dáil Éireann and the European Assembly and to consider and report on the relations between the Irish representatives in the European Assembly and the House of the Oireachtas."
The arguments for the against the dual mandate have been rehearsed many times, recently in this House in the debate on the nominations of Deputies Pattison and Treacy. For a variety of reasons the desirability of maintaining the dual mandate has been questioned in the past. Perhaps insufficient thought has been given to the consequences of its removal and, in particular, in the event of removal, to the effect on relations between the Irish MEPs and the Oireachtas. I will deal with that subject in more detail later. Deputy Lenihan has referred in his speech to one possibility which was discussed in 1975 as to what the linkage between the MEPs and the Oireachtas should be. That was one suggestion and there are a number of others to which I will refer later. On that point, it should be made clear that the Joint Committee have, even since 1975, not accepted the inevitability of the ending of the dual mandate. In 1980 they were suggesting an amendment to the Standing Orders to provide that representatives in the Assembly of the European Communities who are also Members of either House be notified of meetings and be allowed to attend and take part in proceedings, without having the right to vote. That was a different aspect of the problem which was under discussion last year. The origin, of course, of the dual mandate predates the election of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage. The European Parliament was then entirely composed of members of national legislatures delegated to it by those parliaments. The result was that the dual mandate among European parliamentarians was universal until direct elections were held for the first time in 1979. Direct elections to the European Parliament also marked, as it were, the coming of age of that parliament and encouraged a healthy desire to see that parliament move away from any suggestion of tutelage by national legislatures.
In considering the motion and the amendment, it is relevant to refer to the present position in other member states. Deputy Lenihan has done this. I accept that it is clear that the process of phasing out the dual mandate has begun. At the same time, it is relevant to point out that only two member states out of the ten have, in fact, totally dispensed with the dual mandate. The Dutch, while it is permitted by their national legislation, have totally phased it out, and the Greeks, who, as new members, had direct elections recently, have legislation which prohibits the dual mandate, unlike our own. They are the only two nations who do not have the dual mandate. The other eight members, including ourselves, still operate it.
The Act of the Council establishing the first direct elections to the European Parliament does refer to the dual mandate. In fact, it states that membership of the European Parliament shall be compatible with membership of national legislatures. Generally speaking, therefore, where the dual mandate has been discouraged, this has been done through more or less informal arrangements by one or several political parties.
While the dual mandate existed the relationship between the Oireachtas and the European Parliament was quite clear. Deputy Lenihan referred to this. I was glad to note that he considered that it was important that there should be a relationship. In the old days, members travelling to Europe were fully in touch with the atmosphere and mood of this Parliament. There was contact on a day to day basis with constituents—most of them were TDs. At this time, this was valuable and helped them to formulate views they expressed in Europe on issues of concern to Ireland. I accept that this involved a very heavy burden on TDs. Perhaps Deputy Lenihan, on reflection, may feel that he does not give enough credit to members of all parties, including his own up to recently, who have carried the dual mandate since we joined the EEC in 1973. The present position in regard to Ireland's MEPs is that each of the three main parties have members in the European Assembly who are not Members of the Dáil or Seanad. In Fine Gael, Mr. Mark Clinton is not now a Member of the Oireachtas. Similarly, in the Labour Party, as mentioned, neither Mr. Framk Cluskey nor Mr. John Horgan is a Member of the Oireachtas. It so happens at this point in time that all the Fianna Fáil MEPs fit into this category—although one wonders whether this would have been the case had Miss Síle de Valera been successful in her bid to retain her Dáil seat. In regard to the Independents, one, Mr. Neil Blaney, holds the dual mandate, while Mr. T.J. Maher is not a Member of the Oireachtas.
Members of the European Parliament who are not currently holders of the dual mandate do not have any right of access to either House of the Oireachtas. Their sole links are party links. However, one must also have regard to Irish members of the European Parliament who are not members of any political party in Ireland.
The problem of the dual mandate is central to the overall nature of the links that should exist between MEPs and the Oireachtas. This, as mentioned was adverted to in 1975 by the Joint Committee. In their view at the time it was desirable to give all members of the European Parliament rights of audience in both Houses of the Oireachtas. This is one of a range of options being considered by the Government with a view to making the role of the European parliamentarian more effective.
It might be no harm if I referred to some of the other options which the Government are considering as ways of giving members of the European Parliament the opportunity of closer association with the Oireachtas. It is necessary to examine in depth any proposals for change in this area and the consequence thereof and this is the main reason why we think the matter is deserving of further consideration in the Joint Committee. There must, of course, be no suggestion of diminution in the status of the MEP. His or her status derives in the normal way from election. There ought to be no suggestion that this is an attempt to "renationalise" the European Parliament.
What we must do is to establish clear channels of communication between the Members of the Oireachtas and the Irish members of the European Parliament, to the mutual advantage of both. The need for such channels has, perhaps, been obscured by the existence of the dual mandate, and the advantages which, up to now, have been taken for granted. These will disappear if the dual mandate is phased put. Our desire is to make arrangements to ensure that, whatever the circumstances, the informal, unrecognised but valuable benefits are retained.
Any of the proposed solutions I will mention raise fairly basic issues of principle. These will have to be the subject of inter-party consultation and I am sure that I can count on the goodwill of everybody to ensure that we reach a satisfactory outcome. We may also, in due course, need the views of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
As I have said, the suggestion that the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation made in its report on 4 June 1975 was that members of the European Parliament should have the right of audience on both Houses of the Oireachtas. On reflection that is a far-reaching proposal and it is important that the Opposition should consider its implications, although it may be the right solution ultimately. There are serious questions arising from this. For instance, should the rights of audience be general? Should they be restricted and if so, in what way? To take an extreme example: should an MEP be entitled to speak here about improving the roads in Connemara or West Cork? Is that the kind of thing the Opposition have in mind? As I said, there are aspects that need to be teased out if that is the course the Members of this House and the MEPs, who are not Members of this House, feel is the best solution.
Another possibility is to arrange for members of the European Parliament to be Members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the EEC. This, as Deputies know, was the position originally adopted by the Oireachtas when all the Members were dual mandate holders. Subsequently the committee decided to exclude members of the European Parliament from membership of the committee. The last committee suggested a modification of this to make it optional for political parties to nominate dual mandate holders to the committee. This suggests that the committee saw merit in associating members of the European Parliament with the work of the committee. This suggestion raises, as does the previous one, fundamental questions of principle concerning the involvement of non-members of the Oireachtas in the work of the Oireachtas. The implications of these suggestions must be further examined, if that course is considered the best in the event of the dual mandate ultimately being phased out.
A further alternative which could be considered would be the establishment of a Joint Oireachtas — European Parliament Consultative Committee which could meet a number of times a year. While this suggestion would confer benefits, they would clearly be less than those conferred when an integral relationship by virtue of the universal dual mandate existed.
It will be clear therefore why the Government propose the amendment to this motion. It is an area where I hope we can count on constructive co-operation from all parties and Members. The role of the European Parliament is important in the decision-making process of the Community and these decisions have a very direct bearing on crucial areas in Ireland.
The influence of the European Parliament is going to grow rather than diminish. The proportion of Irish members is going to fall with the further enlargement of the Community. Clearly, a beneficial two-way process between the Oireachtas and the European Parliament is highly desirable, especially if this process enhances the standing of Irish members in the parliamentary and party committees in Europe. I would hope that the Opposition would recognise that further consideration on an all-party basis needs to be given to the nature of the global relationship which ought to exist between members of the European Parliament and the Oireachtas.
The problem is, as I have already said, delicate precisely because, while establishing adequate and effective links between the two institutions, it is vital to preserve the actual and perceived integrity of both.
That is the situation and I would urge the Opposition to further consider the situation. I do not think this is a case of the Opposition having changed their position in the last few months and coming here and condemning the other parties for continuing the dual mandate, which may or may not continue much longer. This is a continuing situation which exists in eight of the EEC member states. I have tried to explain today that there are advantages as well as disadvantages to the dual mandate system. If it is to be phased out we would wish to have some form of link which would in some sense allow mutually beneficial contacts to be maintained. As I said however, the nature of any such arrangements is a delicate question with political, practical and even legal overtones.
The Opposition will be aware that the Joint Committee changed their mind on more than one occasion on whether MEPs should be members of that committee. We do not want to move too quickly. We would like to look at this question in its broadest context, on an all-party basis, with Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas and with MEPs who are not members of any party, in the event of the dual mandate being phased out.
I do not intend to cast any aspersions on the members of the European Parliament who are Members of the Oireachtas. Until such time as our Oireachtas Members have acquired, through divine inspiration or otherwise, the powers of bi-location, I must oppose the dual mandate because in my view it is beyond human endurance that a person should belong to the Oireachtas and the European Parliament at the same time.
The Fianna Fáil Party—I do not claim that we are infallible; we are generally inspired — decided not to approve the dual mandate. During the election our candidates gave a written undertaking that should he or she be elected to the European Parliament he or she would resign his or her seat in Dáil Éireann. This would be in the interests of the Oireachtas as well as the European Parliament. In my opinion, dual membership demeans both institutions. The Minister admitted that and the Government in their amendment admit the wisdom of our motion. They admit there is cause for concern and appreciate that the situation must be reviewed. We say that now is the time to carry out this review.
During the last few weeks we heard disturbing rumours of what is happening on the European scene about neutrality, abortion and other serious problems. I doubt if our Members, even though they are very able people and good Members of both Parliaments, can keep these problems in proper perspective, if they have to dash from Strasbourg, Luxembourg or Brussels to Dublin. It is too much to expect them to give their best to both Parliaments. I am all for EEC membership and believe in the future of the European Parliament. That is why I want our European members to give their best to the debates in Europe. They should not have to work in both parliaments. What would happen if they had a very important vote in this House and a very important decision to make in Europe? Which House would these Members serve? Would they go to the continent to vote or would they stay here? No matter what they do, they are bound to offend some school of thought and one institution will suffer by their absence.
The Fianna Fáil Party have no intention of allowing pairing for European Members because we think it would be wrong. If we agreed to pairing we would be condoning membership of both Parliaments and this we cannot do. I would like that to be fully understood. It is not an attempt on our part to win a vote. We want to bring home to these people the seriousness of the position in relation to dual membership. There may be some excuse for people who were elected to both the Dáil and the European parliament but to our amazement we saw the Labour Party, when some of their members withdrew from the European Parliament on being appointed to the Government, appointing in their place sitting Deputies to the European Parliament. This caused grave concern in the Labour Party but it did not stop the hierarchy of that party from showing their contempt for this House by making these appointments. Their attitude seems to be that this House does not need these Members and that they can do better in Europe. Perhaps they can, but they cannot serve two masters. They are able people but not sufficiently able to carry two mandates.
I appeal to the Minister to influence his colleagues to end this situation. He made a brave attempt to justify it but in his heart he knew he did not succeed. I believe he feels as I and Deputy Lenihan do on this issue. He should put it to his colleagues that Fianna Fáil were quite right in telling their members that if they opted for Europe they had to leave the Dáil. This is the best policy. The Minister has hinted that the dual mandate may not continue so why should it not now be ended?
When we joined the EEC it was said that we were joining Europe. Of course we were always part of Europe and as Europeans we wanted to play our full part in the European Assembly so that Europe would be prosperous and without the spectre of war which haunted it so often in the past. The European parliament deserves Members who can give their full time to its deliberation so that it will develop in the right way and not to the detriment of this country.
It takes all the time of a parliamentarian to do one job, whether here or in Europe. The majority of us are fairly experienced parliamentarians and we realise the strain it can be to do one's work in this House in serving one's constituents and trying to be a legislator. As one who claims to have no more than average intelligence, I have come to realise that one should do one job well not try to spread whatever talent one has over the European continent. It may be said that parliamentarians from other countries have a dual mandate but that is their concern. Our Parliament is comparatively new and we need all the talent we have concentrated here.
There are many who would like to serve in the European Parliament and it is a mark of distinction to be elected there. Those who succeeded in being elected are to be congratulated on their success but they should not push their luck too far by trying to serve two Parliaments. It is almost impossible to do. Apart from mental ability, one would also need great physical strength to cope with all the travelling and workload involved.
I urge the Government to drop their rather weak amendment. It endorses our stand but the Government cannot see their way to saying that the Opposition are right on this occasion. Both Parliaments are suffering as a result of the dual mandate. Democracy is the master of both but it is a fragile thing which must always be nurtured. We run the risk of bringing democracy into ridicule by appointing to the European Parliament someone elected to serve constituents in Dublin or Cork. The people have no opportunity to endorse the candidature of those who have been appointed through this House to Europe. They should have the means to express their verdict.
Deputy Lenihan has made the case very forcibly that we should end the dual mandate. I hope that my contribution will help to focus attention on this problem. We must not bury our heads in the sand. The Government are well aware that there is a weakness in their case. They are immersed in dealing with great problems and they need all their Members here. They have not so much ability on their benches that they can afford to send five or six people to Europe. They should concentrate the energies of all their Members on domestic problems such as unemployment and the rising cost of living. It must be very annoying to the unemployed to read of a Member of this House going off to solve the problems of Europe. There are 140,000 people unemployed here and the rate of unemployment in Europe, except for two countries, is lower than here.
I appeal to the Government to end the dual mandate and withdraw their amendment.
On a point of order—I do not want to raise this to make a row—-what are the guidelines by which speakers are called in this debate? In other words, what was agreed on the Order of Business this morning?
There are no standard guidelines, but the Chair will be following the normal practice of calling on speakers from the two main parties and then endeavouring to accommodate an Independent. I have sought, and have received, the co-operation of Deputies McCartin and Briscoe, each of whom is prepared to forfeit five minutes so that I can allow Deputy Blaney to speak for 12½ minutes.
If that is the democracy we talk about in this House it seems very hollow. According to the Chair the only way in which I, as an elected Member can speak is in whatever time other speakers will give. I will have more to say on it at another time.
It is appropriate that we should discuss this subject, but I suggest it might have been brought up by the present Opposition and discussed in good faith at a time when they themselves were in a position to make decisions. It could have been brought up at a different time and an accommodation could have been found for the problem of having cross-representation in the two parliaments with a view to having an understanding between parliamentarians in the two Houses. I would have accepted that as sincere.
I understand a decision was made, as Deputy Moore has said, but after the direct elections the decision was rescinded temporarily. If the outgoing Deputy Síle de Valera had been reelected to the Dáil we might well have seen the Opposition decision rescinded for a second time. Deputy Lenihan knows what he is talking about. I remember him being a Member of the European Parliament while he was Leader of the Opposition in the Seanad. He tried to fulfil that role and I am not saying he did not do it adequately. In the Seanad he made things as difficult as he could for the Government in office at that time; he went to Europe and he was a member of his shadow cabinet and of various committees.
The powers of the European Parliament have not changed since then—indeed it was a smaller parliament with smaller representation at that time. At that time there was all the more need that every Member should have been present, because the EEC were growing and developing their policies—we must confess they are not doing so at the moment because we now find ourselves in a kind of cul-de-sac in Europe. If Fianna Fáil felt so strongly at that time, why, instead of nominating to that Parliament Members of the Seanad who had less responsibility than Members of the Dáil, did they say that Members of the Dáil should continue to be in Europe? The responsibility to represent Ireland in the European Parliament was just as great then as now.
Today Deputy Lenihan spoke about "dignity, decorum and honour". Was the representation given to Europe at that time by Fianna Fáil without dignity, decorum or honor? Was Deputy Lenihan's representation then without dignity, decorum or honour? He had a democratic mandate and he could have moved to the back benches of the Seanad where his responsibilities would have been less if he could not have done the two jobs properly.
The Whip has indicated to us that we cannot get pairs because it is felt it would not be appropriate to the needs of the Dáil to allow us to go to Europe to fulfil the mandate given to us. On the other hand, it is all right to keep us wandering in the corridors of this House for entire days, waiting for divisions while six or seven Fianna Fáil speakers, one after another, make identical points, marking time, looking at the clock to see how they can fill the hour, one speaker making the same point six or seven times. Pairs had been offered through the years to people who did not want anything more than to go to the races, to go back to their own businesses, to attend funerals of people they had never known. Today we have qualms of conscience to ensure that Deputies fulfil their mandate to those who elected them to the Dáil.
In many respects I would welcome a debate on this subject but I do not welcome this sort of make-believe, of hypocrisy. The decisions were made by Fianna Fáil at a time convenient to themselves, without considering alternatives, without asking themselves what means should be established so that a proper relationship would exist between the two parliaments. I am not here making a case for the continuance of the dual mandate. There is the question of whether it was honourable to continue with the dual mandate for two years and then suddenly, overnight, it becomes dishonourable at a time when Fianna Fáil have not got anybody else to throw into that position. It is not a reasonable approach to a discussion on this subject, and that is why we must make another opportunity to debate the matter in more reasonable circumstances.
I remind the Opposition that in the European Parliament they are in partnership with a group. Just like here, I appreciate the importance of political parties in Europe: if you do not belong to a political party you have not got real power. Fianna Fáil are attached to a political party in Europe who set so little value on their mandate to represent their people in that parliament that they alternate: they send Members there for a year or 18 months, then they disappear and others are sent in. It is just a perk or a holiday. They are the group Fianna Fáil sit with in the European Parliament, a group who have no genuine belief in the European Parliament as an institution capable of being developed and making a contribution to Europe.
There is a lot of insincere talk today about concern for giving the sort of representation that the Irish people deserve. I it is a difficult task but half of the argument represented by part-timers. I do not think a person should give all his time to either parliament. For years we saw this Parliament represented by part-timers. I do not make any comment on that: I am just saying that that was the situation — farmers, business people, sometimes professors in universities, practising lawyers, occupied benches here but they could only give it part of their time. We saw as Members of this House people who were members of health boards, county councils, local authorities of all kinds. They carried on business as well. I do not know how they did it, but they were the people who represented us. It is difficult to do the two jobs but I do not say that if you do the two jobs at the same time your performance will be less satisfactory. We do not find it easy, but if you are prepared to work a seven-day week, like I am, not to take any holidays, to travel by night, it can be done.
My group in the European Parliament is a very big one, so if the Irish members of the group get their will accepted at a group meeting we can be assured of the backing of 110 Christian Democrats in the Parliament. It is much more important for Fianna Fáil Members of the European Parliament to be there at all times because they are members of a group whose sole interest is the protection of the French position. The Christian Democrats, with whom we sit, represent the interests of the peoples of Europe who believe, as we do, in the CAP, in European unity, in peace and Christian principles throughout Europe. If we sometimes are not able to be there our interests are fully represented. I can understand Deputy Lenihan's position because of the group they sit with.
I shall try to come across as reasonable as possible in my contribution. From the beginning Fianna Fáil have been consistently against the dual mandate. When Fianna Fáil candidates first contested an election for the European Parliament it was clear that there was no way that if elected they could then resign their Dáil seats thus precipitating by-elections which would have been expensive. It has been our approach from the beginning that those who sought election to the European Parliament and were successful would at the time of the next general election have to resign their seats in Dáil Éireann. That was accepted by all members of our Party, including former Deputy Sile de Valera. If the people of the country feel strongly about anything in this connection it would be the fact that the European Parliament is now being held out as a sinecure to failed Dáil candidates. The two members of the Labour party who lost in their efforts to secure a seat in this House and were later appointed to the European Parliament do not have any mandate from anybody. They have not received even one vote from the people to go to Europe. That is wrong.
The Government amendment is flannel to cover up a situation which is—we must be honest about this— a little embarrassing and uncomfortable for them at present. They are anxious that we should sit around the table and talk about this. We know that only 25 per cent of the membership of the European Parliament have a dual mandate and that will be phased out over a period of time. We should not be the last to do this. Fine Gael and Labour Deputies on radio and television always call for a greater role in the legislative process here. They feel that they are left out and would like to be more involved. I do not know how they can claim this and at the same time expect to represent their Dáil constituents and also the multi-Dáil constituency which is their European constituency. This is not a viable task for anybody.
I can understand Deputy McCartin getting a little hot under the collar about this because he is a member of both Parliaments. I accept that he has a mandate to be here as well as in the European Parliament because he was elected to his House at a time when his constituents were aware that he was also a member of the European Parliament and would almost certainly continue to retain that membership. However, I believe that when it comes to the next European elections his people will be looking for a different type of person to represent them. Dual membership tends to reduce the currency of the European Parliament. That Parliament has some very important work to do and there are always important issues coming before that body. I wonder how many days Deputy McCartin has been able to spend in attendance at the European Parliament this month. It is possible that it will be stated that he has not been able to attend because we would not give him a pair, but from the beginning we made it clear that we would not grant a pair to those holding dual membership after the election last June. We are not going to pair people who are absent on European parliamentary business. We are not going to shift from that position.
It is clear to everybody what the issue is. We have stated our opposition and we believe that ultimately the European Parliament will make its own ruling on this matter because it is at present being treated like a county council. I suggest that the Government have another look at this matter and act speedily to remove the dual mandate which they know is not correct.
At the outset I should like to say that I was surprised that Deputy Lenihan was the mover of the motion but even more surprised at what he had to say. He gave us all the reasons why there should not be dual membership and at a later stage gave a clear indication that Fianna Fáil took their decision as a party with all those good reasons in hand. That is not my recollection and I am not a member of Fianna Fáil or any other party in this House. The decision was reached for different reasons and did not have anything to do with one's capacity to represent a constituency here and represent a larger one in Europe. I will not say anything more about that matter. It is difficult to do both and it is true to say that in many cases, as constituencies differ within this Parliament, it is difficult in many cases as between one constituency and another to do the single job. However, some Deputies do that single job better than others and there are Deputies who do the two jobs better than some can do the single job.
We have heard talk about democracy but what has not been mentioned is the position of the electorate. The members who contributed tonight did not mention the electorate. It is for them to decide who goes to which Parliament. It is for the electorate to decide at any given time who ceases to be a Member of this House and who ceases to go to Europe. They are the people we represent and if that is their choice we must accept it. We are talking through our hats when we refer to what we should or should not decide here or what a Joint Committee should decide. The electorate made their decision and will make others. They should be allowed make such decisions.
If the experience of members of the European Parliament, such as Deputies McCartin and O'Donnell, myself or Deputy Lenihan, who was a member of that Parliament in his time, so determines in our minds that we cannot do both jobs then we do not stand for some one or the other but if our belief is that we can and we will stand for both then the electorate in the large and small constituency make the decision. We are only wasting the time of the House talking about this matter, talking about a Joint Committee considering it and talking about the 1975 Committee. We must talk about the electorate we represent because they are the people who must be satisfied. We are merely there in their name and if they want any Member to represent them here and in Europe we are the last people who should take it upon ourselves to say: "No, you, the electorate, have not the right to make such a choice. We determine that someone who is a Member here cannot go to Europe on your behalf even though you may want him." This is something the people will decide.
Let us not waste the time of the Government or the Opposition, or anybody else's time, going into whether or not it can be done or how well it can be done. There are Members on both sides of the House who have had experience as Ministers in Government since we joined the EEC. Let us take the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Everybody will agree that his job is a mighty task on its own. But he also represents a constituency. Anybody can check how long he also spends in Europe. But would anybody say that the Minister for Foreign Affairs cannot do it and suggest appointing three people instead? Nobody does because the man who carries that portfolio does so because he is elected by the people and represents the people in one way or another and, arising from that, he is appointed as Foreign Minister.
The same applies to the Minister for Agriculture. He is another Minister who spends a great deal of time abroad and at home on matters pertaining to the European Parliament, to the Commission, to the Council of Ministers. The same applies to the Leader of the Government of the day. Would anybody turn around and say that this is too much for one man and that if he is a TD and represents a constituency we will have to put somebody in his place if we make him Taoiseach? That is the way it would have to be worked out and those positions are of far greater importance and carry far more responsibility than the position of Members who are made dual representatives in this House and in the European Parliament.
The Ministers of this Government right up to the Taoiseach have these chores to do and I have not heard anybody say that the job should be split and that somebody should be appointed in place of the Taoiseach, that we should have a by-election and appoint somebody but leave the Taoiseach as Taoiseach. The Constitution would have to be changed, but even if it was would it not be stupid? It would be silly and if anyone proposed it he would be laughed out of the House. What is being proposed here tonight is just as ridiculous. Let the people that we represent, either in Europe or in this House, be the judges. They are the people who are entitled to judge and we speak only in their name. If they give us the mandate, dual or single, that is their right and it is not for us to take it from them. So let us not allow ourselves to get bogged down in the merits or otherwise or the capacity or otherwise of any individual, because no two individuals have the same capacity and no two individuals with a dual mandate have the same problems and no two Members of this House representing the same constituency necessarily carry the same load. We all know this from our experience. Both Deputy Joe McCartin and I represent eight counties out of the thirty-two and in the national parliament represent large scattered constituencies where the population is all too low. But I have been doing this for a while. I found it difficult with a single mandate. I found it even more difficult when I was in Government and had to look after a constituency and many other things as well. But nobody ever said I could not to both. One has to be one before one can become the other.
But there is an outstanding problem recognised by everybody in Europe and that is the total lack of liaison between this House and the European Parliament. Instead of talking about doing away with the dual mandate — let the people decide on that and let the Members who fail to go back for either one or the other decide that — we should be talking about giving every member representing us in Europe the right of audience and all other rights, except voting, in this House. This would not be extraordinary; it would not be revolutionary; it would be common sense. I would go further and say that in every quarter there should be a day set aside when matters pertaining to this country that transpire on the European scene, whether at Commission, Council of Ministers, Summit or parliament, can be reported back to this House and discussed here. In this way this parliament, those of us who belong to both parliaments, those who do not belong to this parliament but belong to the European Parliament, can come in here and debate what has gone on on the European scene in the previous two or three months that affects us. That is what we should be talking about rather than who can or who cannot carry the dual mandate. That is the approach that I would like this House to take.
The Government should consider this rather than setting up a committee to do so. Who would be on such a committee? Where would they get the knowledge and how would they represent the people of the various constituencies, half a million people? Yet the suggestion is to have a committee of a dozen or so people sitting down to determine whether or not the electors of any of the constituencies may elect a Member of this House to the European Parliament or vice versa. Leave it to the people and let them decide. They are the people who will detect whether or not any of us have failed in either or both respects of our dual mandate. They will be quick to detect this and they will give their answers and make the choice. But the choice should be left open to them. There is no harm in the people agreeing that any Member may be here and in Europe. Why should they not be allowed to have sent that person rather than somebody else? It is they whom we represent and let us not forget that. We tend to forget it. We tend to think we are here as of right. The only right we have derives from the people who sent us here. The right that we have to speak in the European Parliament derives from our people. So let us not get into a tizzy because of a motion by Deputy Lenihan that we should not have a dual mandate. Until we find some other way of having proper liaison between the two elements we need the dual mandate.
From my own short experience in the European Parliament I know that if we had no connection with this House we would be very far removed from it in so far as what is going on and in so far as what should be happening in Europe to keep in line with what we want as a national parliament. It is vital that this thing should be put together rather than taken apart. We are too far apart as it is. The dual mandate is a good thing. If it is a virtue in Fianna Fáil not to have it and it is not for all these reasons that we were talking about tonight that that decision was made and that it was ultimately confirmed——
Gabh mo leith scéal, tá tríi nóiméad fágtha agat.
Go raibh maith agat. Even if it was all virtuous on the part of Fianna Fáil to have made this decision, that is their prerogative; it is their right as a party to do this, but at the same time they are answerable to their own organisation and to their own instructors in denying those of the electorate who support them throughout the country the right to make their choice as electors of who they wish from the Fianna Fáil candidates to go to Europe. Those in Fianna Fáil around the country are now debarred from voting for a man or woman who is a Member here to go to Europe or vice versa. This is what has happened by that virtuous decision taken a couple of years ago. The other parties are not so virtuous as they did not take such a decision. If Fianna Fáil had not taken such a decision they would be in government today. Decisions are taken — this is the sort of one we will be taking if we pass this motion tonight — willy nilly without thinking, for the wrong reasons, and before they need be taken. In politics, if one takes a decision before it must be taken it is not only stupid but more ridiculous than one might imagine. That virtuous decision taken by Fianna Fáil leaves them in opposition and the other parties in government today. Was that a verdict from the people telling Fianna Fáil they should not have made such a silly decision? If it was analysed it might well be, but whatever may be the reason I say to the parties on the Government's side they should not take a decision until they have to take one on this matter because they might find if they took the same decision as Fianna FÁil did they could change over again. I know that Fianna Fáil think the parties in government will change over to the other side of the House for other reasons but that is another days' work.
(Interruptions.)
We had some pyrotechnics from Deputy Blaney. I want to emphasise one point. We are staying with our decision in regard to being against dual membership of the European Parliament and Dáil Éireann. We believe it is wrong to hold on to the two jobs; we believe the Member concerned who tries to do so is doing ineffective work in the European Parliament and ineffective work in the Irish Parliament. I believe that anybody who thinks fully about the matter will have to agree with me that it is not just physically, mentally, or psychologically possible to give one's fullest energy and ability to full-time work in each of the parliaments to the maximum benefit of Ireland and the constituents who send us to the respective parliaments. I believe everybody in his heart of hearts agrees with this.
Fianna Fáil have adopted a decision with which we are staying. I am certain if we set up some joint committee of all parties in the House they will come up with that conclusion as the 1975 Joint Committee came up with the conclusion also that it was an unsustainable and untenable position then even in the light of the limited activities of Members of this Oireachtas in the European Parliament before the elected parliament came into being. It was the feeling of all the Members in the House, Deputy Desmond who was there for the Labour Party, Deputy Charlie McDonald from the Fine Gael Party, myself and others, that it was untenable and unsustainable to maintain the two jobs. There is no point in making a speech here doing a con man job as far as the public are concerned. It is not possible, physically, mentally, or psychologically for a person to travel out by plane to Strasbourg, to work on the committees that are meeting two and three times a week apart from the plenary sessions that are held at least once a month, and to do the two jobs simultaneously.
Fianna Fáil faced up to their responsibility in this matter and decided that party members going forward for election must opt if they are Members after the election of the two assemblies. That resulted before the last election in three of our Deputies opting for the European Parliament and not standing for the Dáil and the fourth Deputy standing for the Dáil and on her defeat opting for the European Parliament. I said very deliberately in my opening remarks that what I was saying was pertinent largely to the decision in regard to political parties. I specifically exempted Independents because they in my view are sui generis in this matter. They are a particular case because Independents, as Deputy Blaney stated, go forward on their own to the people and ask the people to support them for wherever they are going, local authorities, Dáil Éireann or the European Parliament. They are responsible to the people alone. Independents are a very small minority in the European Parliament of 410 that is largely a party-orientated parliament. That is why the groups have been established there. They relate to national political parties. Independants, with all due respect to Deputy Blaney, are a very freakish product in the European Parliament.
(Interruptions.)
The European Parliament is primarily a party-orientated parliament. That is why in every country apart from Britain and Ireland you have the list system of election where you have party lists prepared and they decide the people on those party lists. Deputy Blaney is well aware as an ex-member of our party that within our system it is the political party who put forward candidates for national election and for European election. The political parties, the Fianna Fáil Party, the Fine Gael Party or the Labour Party have an obligation in our system and within our society to the public as a whole which Independents like Deputy Blaney may not feel, because Independents do not have the overall national conception that political parties have to hold. It is the duty of political parties in the national interests to consider the matter and decide how best to deploy their particular members in their activities in the European Parliament, the national parliament or local authorities. It is up to political parties to distil the wisdom of their membership and decide at party conventions who to put forward for these particular bodies in the overall national and European interests.
That is what political parties are for and that is why they are structured the way they are. Before the last election Fianna Fáil decided, and we are staying with that decision, that we can deploy our party members better by ensuring that whatever people are nominated by conventions of our party, selected by our party, put forward for election and elected by the people, concentrate on one particular body only. That is a responsible attitude of a party doing their job for society and the nation as a whole. There is no question of people in that situation being forced into a position where the party decide to put forward people whom the party know well are unable do the two jobs at the same time. The party make a decision that the people must be served to the maximum extent by selecting people and electing people who would specialise in their respective parliaments, the Irish national Parliament and the European Parliament. That is the reason we came to that decision. There is no other reasoning behind it and we will stay with that decision.
There is one other point I would like to make, which was mentioned by the Minister of State and also by Deputy Blaney in some of the more constructive moments of his speech and also by some other Members, the question of the linkage between membership of the national parliament and the European Parliament. That needs to be strengthened. I agree with Deputy Blaney, the Minister of State and other speakers in this respect. I am against the dual mandate but I feel the linkage must be tighter. European Parliament members should be entitled to the right of audience here for specified debates on European matters in this House. European Parliament members should make regular reports to this House and a specified debate on European membership should take place at which they would contribute along with other Members of this House. They should be members of specific committees related to European matters and be in a position to be co-opted on to committees where a European perspective or a European view is required. I agree with all this.
We should be devoting our minds from here on to acknowledging that the dual mandate is a hopeless concept in terms of allocating time, energy, resources and ability to the day's work involved in trying to work in two parliaments hundreds of miles apart. That is not on. What is on is a system whereby people specialise in one or the other parliament but if elected to the European Parliament maintain regular contact here through right of audience in relation to European matters, right of membership of committees, right to make reports to this House and to the other House of the Oireachtas and in that manner to maintain a linkage apart from the linkage involved by their continuing membership of the political parties represented in this House.
We will push this motion to a vote. We feel the action of the Coalition parties in maintaining this policy is dishonest. It is not doing a service to the Irish people. The maximum is required from all of us in this House and in the European Parliament where 15 members only out of a parliament of 410 represent this country. With maximum attendance and the specialisations required of them, I do not think we can get this service from a dual mandate situation. Therefore, we are opposed to it, but certainly we will support any effort to have all-party consultation on any of a number of variable dimensions in which we can establish stronger links between this parliament and the members of the European Parliament.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 81; Níl, 73.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Birmingham, George.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- (Dublin North-West).
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael J.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McCartin, John J.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Markey, Bernard.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- D'Arcy, Michael J.
- Deasy, Martin A.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John F.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Cavan-Monaghan).
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Fleming, Brian.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan Richie.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Madeleine.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Séan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
- Yates, Iyan.
Níl
- Acheson, Carrie.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Seamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh. (Wexford).
- Callanan, John.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Coughlan, Clement.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Filgate, Eddie.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South-Central).
- Fitzsimons, Jim.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- French, Sén.
- Gallagher, Dennis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Joyce, Carey.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Kenneally, William.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley, P.J.
- Murphy, Ciarán P.
- Nolan, Tom.
- O'Donoghue, Martin.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Smith, Michael.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh Sén.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael J.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies L'Estrange and Mervyn Taylor; Níl, Deputies Moore and Briscoe.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
I dissent from that.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.50 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 29 October 1981.