Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Nov 1993

SECTION 2.

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

: I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, subsection (1), lines 17 and 18, to delete "Article 8b2 of the Treaty," and substitute "Article 8b(2) (inserted by the Treaty) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Rome on the 25th day of March, 1957,".

Section 2, as drafted, extends the right to stand as a candidate or a replacement candidate at European elections to nationals of other European Community member states resident here, subject to any detailed arrangements adopted by the Council of Ministers pursuant to Article 8 (b) (ii) of the Maastricht Treaty. The reference to Article 8b (2) of the Maastricht Treaty in the section as it stands is technically incorrect; the reference should be to a new Article 8b (2) inserted by the Maastricht Treaty in the Treaty establishing the European Community, usually known as the Treaty of Rome. This amendment makes the necessary correction and is necessary to avoid any legal challenge to the validity of the extension to resident European Community nationals of the right to stand as candidates at European elections here.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendment No. 2 is in the name of Deputy Sargent. Amendment No. 4 is an alternative and it is proposed, therefore, that Nos. 2 and 4 be taken together, by agreement.

Mr. Sargent

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 2, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) No person may be at the same time a member of the Oireachtas or other public elective body and of the European Parliament, and, if any person who is already a member of the Oireachtas or other public elective body becomes a member of the European Parliament she/he shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his/her first seat.".

This amendment takes into account the fact that the job of a TD and an MEP are full jobs in their own right — indeed many of us would say they are more than full jobs. The amendment also takes into account the increasing public awareness, in the light of large scale unemployment here and throughout the EC, that the holding of both these positions simultaneously is tantamount to double jobbing.

I would not be alone in saying that the holding of the two jobs impinges on the ability of a person to serve in one or other place. It also prevents other citizens from becoming involved in politics. In the current climate when politics seems to be the soft target, the holding of both positions at the same time discredits politics. On the one hand, as TDs we argue we are extremely busy people and that any days off are extremely well earned, while on the other we say we can hold the job of a TD and an MEP at the same time. It should be taken into account in this legislation that in future these jobs will not be any easier.

Mr. Hogan

My amendment No. 4 relates to this amendment. The position of the Fine Gael Party in relation to representation on the European Parliament is that the job of Members of the European Parliament is a full-time job. Any Member of the Oireachtas who is successful in a European election should decide at the following general election whether they wish to remain as a Member of the Oireachtas or a full-time Member of the European Parliament. All political parties recognise the onerous duties of a full-time Member of the European Parliament. With the increased powers of the European Parliament in the context of the Maastricht Treaty, the job of an MEP will require more attention to detail than was previously the case. The public will become more cynical about the role of public representatives in the European Parliament if a person elected to that Parliament remain a Member of the Oireachtas. A firm line should be taken, by agreement, on the position of Members of the Oireachtas who are successful in European Parliament elections. It is imperative that people who wish to hold the position of Member of the European Parliament do not contest general elections, and that they contest Dáil elections they should cease to be a Member of the European Parliament.

Dr. Upton

There is a certain amount of merit in the amendments, but I question whether it is necessary to include such a provision in law. The public is well aware of the facts and is able to make up its own mind on such matters. The proposal is self-limiting to some extent — it will not be possible in the longer term for a person to be both a Member of the Dáil and a Member of the European Parliament. At the same time I have some reservations about this exclusion provision.

To look at the matter in a general way, would Members of this House argue that John Hume, who is a member of the Westminister Parliament and a member of the European Parliament, should be excluded from membership of either those Parliaments, having regard to the Northern Ireland situation? I accept that the position in the North is different from that in the South, but nevertheless it would be very difficult to provide in legislation that a public representative should be excluded from holding a dual mandate in certain circumstances.

I agree that people are concerned about the democratic process — there is much cynicism among the public about politics in general. It might be no harm if we began to think in terms of the contribution which can be made by public representatives rather than laying down limitations. I do not think it is desirable to include such a provision in legislation at this stage. Nevertheless, I accept the principle behind these amendments. Apart from exceptional circumstances, it will not be possible from a practical point of view for public representatives to hold a dual mandate in two parliaments in the longer term.

Mr. Martin

I agree with the principle behind the amendments. I do not think public representatives who are Members of both the Oireachtas and the European Parliament can properly and effectively represent their constituents. However, I have a problem with such an exclusion provision because it would interfere with the fundamental right of people to make their own decisions. People have all the facts before them prior to making a decision. The position of John Hume was cited as an example of how in the future people in a particular region might want a voice in both the national and European parliaments. One has to be very careful about including in legislation a provision which could prevent people from having such a choice. We may not like the decisions made by people in certain instances, but it should be remembered that democracy is about the will of the people and their right to decide. This is why I would stop short of including in legislation a provision which, under Deputy Sargent's amendment, provides that a person elected to the European Parliament would automatically be deemed to have vacated his or her seat in the Dáil or which, under Deputy Hogan's amendment, provides that public representatives would have to decide whether to give up their seat in the European Parliament or the Oireachtas at a subsequent election. I would be in favour of the public rather than this House making a decision on such a fundamental matter.

Mr. M. Ahern

I agree in general with the principle behind the amendments, but problems could be caused by including such a provision in legislation. In addition, we may not be permitted under EC law to do so. At the end of the day the public will decide whether an individual is capable of representing them in both the Oireachtas and the European Parliament. In general, people strike the right balance. Over the years a number of people have been elected to both pariaments but some of them failed to be re-elected to either the Dáil or the European Parliament subsequently. The public will make the right decision at the end of the day.

I agree with Deputy Martin that we should not take away the public's right to make such decisions by including unnecessary provisions in legislation. It has been proven that democracy in this area works very well. Even though the principle behind the amendment is correct, I do not think there is any need to include it in legislation.

Mrs. Doyle

I support amendment No. 4. It is important clearly to indicate at this stage that it is not possible for public representatives properly to represent their constituents if they are full-time members of both the Oireachtas and the European Parliament. I ask the Minister to take on board the sentiments behind amendment No. 4, which I think are generally accepted by all Members of the House. It has been difficult for some time to convince the electorate of the relevance and importance of membership of the European Parliament. The electorate still finds it difficult to understand the workings of the European Parliament and is not sure what the elected members actually do in Europe. If we want to curb what has been referred to as the growing democratic deficit, bring Europe closer to the public and make it more meaningful to them, it is important for people to realise that being a member of the European Parliament is a full time job. It is not possible to be in two places at once and as professional politicians we owe it to the electorate to serve in the Parliament to which we are elected on a full time basis, in so far as possible. The sentiments behind the two amendments are much the same. It is not possible simultaneously to serve two parliaments. This debate could be extended to cover local government membership and membership of the Houses of the Oireachtas, but that is for another day and another Bill. There will be different views on that issue also.

I ask the Minister to accept amendment No. 4 which proposes that any Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas who is elected to the European Parliament shall cease to be a member of one parliament before the next election. We owe it to the European Parliament and to the people of Ireland to show that we take our duties as members of the European Parliament seriously. We should not fuel, so to speak, the degree of cynicism which exists among the general public about politicians generally. Most of us do not subscribe to these views held by the public. In order to ensure that the public understands the profession we have all chosen, we must uphold standards of professionalism, which cannot include holding a dual mandate for parliaments on different land masses. I ask the Minister to accept amendment No. 4.

Mr. Currie

I welcome the unanimity in the House on this issue. There is a difference of opinion as to whether the amendment ought to be enshrined in legislation, but there seems to be unanimity on the principle behind it. Reference has been made to the difficulties experienced by public representatives holding a dual mandate in carrying out either job properly. Members of the European Parliament require different attributes and talents from those Members of the Oireachtas. I would argue that it is more important for members of the European Parliament to know the thinking in Paris, Bonn, London and elsewhere than to keep in touch with the thinking in their constituencies. It may mean at the end of the period one might not be returned for that constituency. Of course, that is a major problem but there is a certain specialisation about the European Parliament that we do not have in this House.

There was a reference to John Hume as an argument in favour of not banning dual membership by legislation. John Hume occupies a unique position. He has been concerned with one particular constitutional issue which not only has an Irish and British dimension, but a European and world dimension. There is a very good argument for John Hume being a member of the British Parliament, the European Parliament and, indeed, a member of a Northern Ireland parliament if one existed. Some people would argue that if it were possible for him to be in the United States Congress, he should be there. Of course, he has attended that assembly on occasions.

A different situation exists in relation to this House because a Member might decide the balance of power in it. In the past and, presumably, with the plethora of parties and the way matters are progressing, in the future the vote of a member of the European Parliament might be decisive in relation to an Administration here. In that event, it would be impossible to carry out the work that is necessary in this House and in Europe, that must be borne in mind.

Unfortunately, there is cynicism in relation to membership of the European Parliament. I heard potential candidates for the European Parliament — I will not mention names or parties — say that their main reason for wanting to go to Europe is because of the money involved. That is an extremely cynical approach and it is not surprising that the public are cynical. In the case of a person holding a seat in the European Parliament while also holding a seat in this House, that cynicism is increased. It would be perceived as jumping on the "gravy train", an attitude that must be deplored.

Deputy Doyle referred to local authorities and said that was a matter for another day. However, I note Deputy Sargent's amendment refers to "a Member of the Oireachtas or other public elective body". He did not elaborate in his contribution and, presumably, he will at a later stage. Is that a reference to councils bcause, certainly in this city and county, many local councillors are effectively fulltime councillors? Whether that is a good or bad thing is another matter but it is the position. There is a very good argument that we should follow this through to consideration of whether full time membership of a local authority is compatible with membership of this House. We should give consideration to that matter because it will inevitably come to our attention more and more as the workload increases on councillors and on Members of this House.

As I said at the outset, I welcome the apparent unanimity in this House with regard to membership of the European Parliament and membership of this House. The question is whether it should be enshrined in legislation. We believe that should be the case but that the decision should rest with the Government following an election.

Mr. Nealon

The problem of dual mandate is greatly compounded by the size of the constituencies. I am not talking about the number of electors for each member of Parliament, that is something over which we have no control. I am talking about the geographical spread which in all constituencies, with the exception of Dublin is totally unwieldly. The constituency with which I am most familiar, Connacht-Ulster, from the Clare border as far as Inishowen in one direction and as far as Inniskeen, near Dundalk, in the other, is a totally unwieldly area for any member of Parliament to cover. In the main, they see their constituents at weekends, even using a private helicopter they could not service the area.

It leads also to further difficulties in regard to a lack of compatibility within a large constituency such as that. Again, if one considers the Connacht-Ulster constituency, two provinces are joined together. While there is no great difference in political outlook between say, my colleague, Deputy McGinley, and myself, among the population generally a division exists which dates back from ancient times because of the provincial division and other reasons. The division is present even in the accents; the moment one leaves Sligo and enters Donegal the accent changes completely. This division exists from the time of the O'Donnells and whatever warlords existed in Sligo at that time.

There is a difference and a lack of affinity in those constituencies which derives from the larger constituencies. There is also a similar problem with one of the Dáil constituencies, namely, the monstrosity of Longford-Roscommon. How that emerged from any commission I will never know and I presume it will be altered in the future because both constitutencies cross the Shannon and the provinces which the Kings of Connacht were unable to do in previous times. However, the commission was able to do it.

Mr. Hogan

Not Pádraig Flynn.

Mrs. Doyle

Pádraig rode on his white steed.

Chairman

The Deputy without interruption, please.

Mr. Nealon

As far as the Dáil constituencies are concerned, there are strict constitutional limitations about which we can do very little. We must keep within the limitations strictly laid down in the Constitution. However, there are no such constitutional provisions in regard to European constituencies and we should be examining the single seat European constituency with the transferable vote for some future occasion. That could produce some interesting results, one of which would be that as far as the Member of Parliament is concerned, he or she would have a smaller area to cover and, at the very least, the general public would know their Member of Parliament. They would be able to approach that Member who would in turn give a much better service to constituents. With the growing power of the European Parliament in future, it is very important that the Parliament be less remote than at present. While our Members of Parliament are living perhaps 150 miles away, which is the case in my constituency, we will not have that affinity with the European Parliament. It is important to know our Member of Parliament and that he or she should be available to us in the area. That is the only way we will get to know about the workings of the European Parliament and develop a greater affinity for it, which will be vitally important in the future. This is a matter which we should be examining as legislators.

Mr. Finucane

Deputy Hogan's amendment is fair because he states that the person concerned can decide at a subsequent Dáil election whether to remain a Member of the European Parliament or attempt to become a Member of the Dáil.

Most of us here are a member of a local authority and we would all agree that during a local election we are often accused of double-jobbing. It is something to which I never subscribed because those of us who are a member of a local authority see our role there as enhancing our profile here at national level. Most of us would regard membership of a local authority and of Dáil Éireann as constituting a demanding role. Having listened to previous speakers talk about a geographical spread of Euro constituencies, one realises straightaway that it is not possible to be a Member of Dáil Éireann and of the European Parliament simultaneously. Such dual membership does not send out the right signals to the electorate, a large number of whom are unemployed. Some speakers opposite have said that the electorate in their maturity take the decision at election time. Since the first European elections, the electorate has matured significantly. I remember at one stage a Labour TD who was simultaneously a Member of the European Parliament, of Dáil Éireann, of a corporation and of a county council. In this day and age, such a person would need to be bionic to be a member of all of those bodies. It is just not possible.

I recall a Member of Dáil Éireann who was also a member of the European Parliament and who, when it came to a subsequent election to Dáil Éireann, was vilified by others who were in Opposition at the time, particularly by one person who was very timely in reminding the electorate of the expense allowances afforded him as a Member of the European Parliament and of Dáil Éireann, the whole list being chronicled.

This amendment is fair because it affords a Member of this House who may be successful in contesting a seat at a forthcoming European Parliament election a chance to make up their mind at a subsequent Dáil election.

I would encourage everybody to support this amendment. Its provisions are in the interests of this House and of the Irish electorate.

Éamon O Cuiv

I think everybody would agree that double-jobbing is not the most attractive proposition. Certainly it is impossible for somebody to serve both at home and in Europe.

If one seriously considers the implications and operations of the provisions of amendment No. 2 one immediately realises that one would encounter many problems. For example, if there was a tight Dáil voting position — which had been the rule rather than the exception until the advent of this coalition Government — then a European Parliament election could precipitate a general election here and would limit the choice of people who wanted to pursue a European political career.

There are several problems arising from the provisions of amendment No. 4 which have not been addressed so far. If one is talking about a Member of Dáil Éireann who stands subsequently for election to the European Parliament, if the limiting factor proposed here were to be inserted, the first seat should be the one a candidate could not contest again. Allowing a Member of Dáil Éireann contest a European Parliament election and, at the next election, opt out of membership of the European Parliament could lead to a most cynical exercise in which a big name candidate would contest the seat and pass it down the list to a lesser known candidate. If one were to introduce such provision any Member of Dáil Éireann who contested a seat in a European Parliament election should have to forego his or her Dáil seat.

I also notice there is no provision for moving in the opposite direction and for limitations thereto. There are at present two Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas who are also Members of the European Parliament. One was first a Member of Dáil Éireann and subsequently became a member of the European Parliament, serving both simultaneously. There was also a member of the European Parliament who subsequently lost a Dáil seat. I see no provision for any limitation on moving in that direction, which would appear to me to be a major flaw in the amendment as tabled.

I am not sure whether one can write something like this into law. We must realise that there are any number of permutations and combinations. In this respect the electorate are more than wise and will be more than ruthless. It is impossible to serve two masters and in the long term it is impossible to serve as a Member of Dáil Éireann and of the European Parliament. It is becoming ever more obvious that the electorate will deal absolutely ruthlessly with anybody who endeavours to take on more than is possible to handle simultaneously.

The mechanics and possible permutations of this are so complicated that neither amendment would deal with all possible circumstances. The electorate will deal adequately with anybody whom they think is not fully representing them.

Mr. McGinely

Aontaím leis an bprionsabal atá sa dá leasú seo — leasú a dó agus leasú a ceathair. Sílim go bhfuil an pointe déanta go maith ag na cainteoirí a chuaigh romham ó gach taobh den Teach nach bhfuil sé indeanta ag duine ar bith a bheith ina bhall den Teach seo agus a bheith ina bhall de Pharlaimint na hEorpa ag an am céanna. Is eol dúinn go léir an brú mór atá ar bhaill na Dála agus an tSeanaid le bliain anuas. Tá coistí ag gníomhú go minic i rith na seachtaine. Tá an Dáil ina suí anois ceithre lá sa tseachtain. Nuair a tháinig mise anseo ar dtús bhí trí lá sa tseachtain againn. Agus tá an bhliain oibre níos faide. D'fhéadfaí a rá nach bhfuil saor againn ach mi amháin sa bhliain agus se sin mí Lúnasa. Mar sin tá brú agus éileamh níos mó ná iriamh ar an Teachta Dála agus ar an Seanadóir.

Tá an rud céanna ag tárlú san Eoraip go speisialta ó glacadh le conradh Maastricht. Tá brú agus éileamh níos mó ar am an MEP ná mar a bhí riamh agus tá me cinnte go mbainfidh Parlaimint na hEorpa níos mó cúmhachtaí agus níos mo freagrachtaí amach di féin sna blianta amach romhainn. Cosúil le gach Parlaimint eile, thosaigh sí lag ach tá sé de nádúr ag Parlaimint níos mó cumhachtaí agus níos mo freagrachtaí a bhaint amach di féin. Sin a léiríonn an stair dúinn. Tharla sé i Sasana cé gur beag nach raibh cúpla cath ann idir an Parlaimint agus an Ríagus is cinnte go dtarlóidh an rud ceanna i bParlaimint na hEorpa.

Ní shílim go bhfuil sé indéanta ag fear mo bean, a bheith ina bhall den Pharlaimint anseo agus ina bhall de Phairlaimint na hEorpa. Tá sean-fhocal ann agus tá me cinnte gur chuala cuid agaibh é. Agus tá mé cinnte go dtuigfidh an Teachta Sargent éó tharla gur aigesan atá ceann de na leasuithe thíos. Ni féidir leis an ngobadán féin an dá thrá a fhreastal. Is cinnte nach féidir an dá thrá a fhreastal nuair atá míle míle idir amclá thrá.

Sílim go ndúirt an Teachta Ó Máirtín nach chóir go mbeadh reachtaíocht ann faoi seo. Tá sé soiléir go bhfuil an dearcadh ceanna ag gach taobh den Teach ach go bhfuil Teachtaí ar an dtaobh eile ag rá nach choir go mbeadh se ar bhonn reachtúil agus go ndeirimidne gur chóir go mbeadh. Chomh fada agus is eol dom tugadh Bille isteach cúpla bliain ó shin a chuir cosc reachtúil ar bhaill an Rialtais — ar Airí agus ar Airí Stáit — a bheith ina mbaill de údarás áitiúil.

Mr. Martin

Tá an Teachta ag labhairt go ró-thapa.

Mr. McGinley

That is what was legislated for in this House. Tá ag éirí leis agus ní fheicim cén fath nach ndéanfaí an rud céanna anseo ó thaobh Pharlaimint na hEorpa de.

Is é mo phonite dheireannach ná go bhfuil 300,000 duine dífhostaithe sa tír seo agus mar a dúirt dunine éigin níl sé ródheas go mbeadh an double-jobbing seo ag dul ar aghaidh. Maidir leis an dá leasuithe — leasú a dó agus leasú a ceathair — silim go bhfuil leasú a ceathair níos ionmholta agus níos indéanta ná leasú a dó. Sé sin má thoghtar Teachta chuig bParlaimint na hEorpa agus go dtí an Dáil is féidir leo a n-intinn a dhéanamh suas ag an gcéad toghchán ina dhiaidh sin. Aontaim le leasú a ceathair.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

I think everybody will accept the desirability of one man or one woman for one job, a maxim that seems to have general agreement. It was preached by the Progressive Democrats Party, at its inception but, for some reason, that principle has been lost along the way.

It is important to point out that a Member from that party publicly indicated he can adequately perform both functions. Why should we deny the right of that individual to decide whether he can do the job properly? Second, people speak about the relevance of the European Parliament to Dáil Éireann. Perhaps consideration should be given to whether somebody from the European Parliament could bring back a particular expertise and insight to the workings and operation of the Dáil and to the debates.

I was particularly saddened at the suggestion by Deputy Currie that some people who are going forward for the European Parliament elections next June are doing so for the money. That smacks of begrudgery. I would have expected something better from Deputy Currie. Certainly we can be cynical about some people who ran for the European Parliament elections and who, having won a seat, handed it over to the next of kin. They ran on the basis that they would win a seat so that they could hand it over and come back to the Dáil. The people should decide. I see the amendment as a negation of the rights of the individual, an interference in the right of people to decide and, indeed, of the democratic process.

Mr. Molley

Glacaim leis an mbunphrionsabal sa dá leasú atá os comhair na Dála inniu. Is dóigh liom go bhfuil a gcuid rialacha féin ag na páirtithe éagsúla faoi na nithe seo. Is é atá le socrú ná an coir go mbeadh sé leagtha sios go reachtúil go gcaithfear cloí le rialacha den tsórt seo no an bhfágfar faoi na páirtithe é. An bhfuil na páirtithe sásta an cheist a fhágail faoi na votálaithe?

Maidir leis an gcéad leasú atá molta ag an Teachta Sargent tá gné ann a bhainfeadh le mionphaírtithe sa Teach ach go háirithe. Cad a tharlódh dá dtoghfaí Teachta de mhion pháirtí mar ionadaí do Pharlaimint na bEorpa agus go gcaithfeadh an Teachta eirí as an suíochán Dála láithreach? Nil aon rud sa leasú a thaispeánfadh conas a líonfaí an suíochán folamh. Mar sin, cuireann sé iontas orm go bhfuil an Rialtas seo mar a bhí Rialtais roimhe, ag moladh laistigh den Bhille seo go líonfaí aon suíochán folamh i bParlaimint na hEorpa roimh dheich lá. Sin mar a bhí sa Bhille nuair a foilsíodh ar dtús é. Ina dhiaidh sin fuaireamar leasúón Aire a leathnaigh an tréimhse go dtí fiche la. Ni morán feabhais é sin nuair a chuimhnimíd go bhfuil dhá shuíochán Dála folamha ann le bliain — ceann i gContae Mhuigh Eo agus ceann eile i mBaile Átha Cliath. Is cosúil go bhfuil riali á leangan síos do Pharliamint na hEorpa ach gur cuma faoi shuíocháin fholamha anseo sa Dáil.

Tá pointe eile ar mhaíth liom a tharraingt as leasú an Teachta Sargent freisin. Tugann an córas ionadaíocht chionmhar atá i bhfeidhm sa tír seo seans do mhionpháirtithe suíocháin a bhaint amach. Is dóigh gur de bharr an chórais sin a bhuaigh an Comhaontas Glas a suíochán agus chuidigh sé leis an bpáirti s'againne chomh maith, sa chaoí is go bhfuil guth parliaminte ag mionlaigh na tíre seo. Má ghlactar leis an leasú seo, is baol go naistreofar suíochán a bhí bainte amach ag mionpháirti go dtí ceann de na mórpháirtithe in aon fho-thoghcháin a bheadh ann mar is deacair do mhionpháirti fo-though- cháin a bhuachaint. Sin i mo dheacracht leis an tarna leasú de chuid an Teachta Sargent.

Glacaim go hiomlán leis an bprionsabal atá leagtha síos i leasú an Teachta Hogan ar son Fhine Gael. Ar ndóigh cuireann sé iontas orm i gcónaí nach ionann na smaointe ag páirtí nuair a bhíonn sé sa fhreasúra agus nuair a bhíonn sé sa rialtas. Mar sin is cúis áthais dom rún den tsórt sin a fheicéail ag teacht ó Fhine Gael mar déanadh moltaí den tsórt seo cheana ach ní raibh suim acu iontu. Aontaím leo siúd as Fine Gael a dúirt ar maidir nach cóir go mbeadh ball d'údarás áitiúil in a bhall den Teach seo ag an am gcéanna.

Ar fud na hEorpa, tá rialacha éagsúla sa ghnó seo i bhfeidhm i dtíortha éagsúla. Glacaim leis gur féidir le hionadaí i dtíortha áirithe a bheith mar bhall de chomhairle áitúil, d'úarás réigiúnach, den Pharlaimint náisiúnta agus de Chomhphobal na hEorpa. Tá rialacha i bhfeidhm i dtiortha eile den Chomhphobal a fhágann nach féidir le hionadaí ballraíocht a ghlacadh ar níos mó ná dháúdarás. Nil aon riail againn in Éirinn; fágtar faoi na votálaithe é ar lá an toghcháin.

Déanadh tagairt anseo do bhall atá ina bhall de Pharlaiment na hEorpa faoi láthair, ball as mo pháirti féin. Cén fáth ar déanadh tagairt do bhall amháin thar na baill eile? Toghadh an ball seo ina Theachta Dála fad a bhí sé ina bhall de Pharlaimint na hEorpa. Sa chás sin ghlac na votálaithe leis an rogha a leagadh os a gcomhair. Bhí mé féin im iarrathóir ar Pharlaimint na hEorpa ag an tráth gur toghadh Teachta Dála den Pharlaimint agus d'fhéadfaidh sé sin tárlú arís. Níl a fhios agam cén riail atá ag páirtithe eile faoi seo ach tá riail ag mo pháirti nach bhfuil sé de cheart ag ball den pháirti a bheith ina bhall den dá Pharlaimint. Nil a fhios agam an bhfuil an riail sin ag Fianna Fáil; níor dearnadh aon fhógra faio ar aon nós cé go bhfuil Fianna Fáil go maith ag tairiscint comhairle de pháirtithe eile. Ni mór dóibh comhairle a ghlacadh sa ghnó seo iad féin agus a chur in iúl don phobal cad é an riail atá acu.

The argument has been made about somebody who is a Member of two Parliaments. I have explained our party position in regard to that matter. In effect what is proposed in Deputy Hogan's amendment encompasses it.

Mr. Martin

That has not yet been said by the candidate from the Deputy's party.

Mr. Molloy

He has not made his choice yet, which is his right under our party rules.

Chairman

We are dealing with the Bill.

Mr. Molloy

Our party rules can be changed; we are a modern progressive party. We are not hung up on the past and always looking backwards.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

The party was so until last year.

Mr. McGinley

A nudge, a nod and a wink.

Mr. Molloy

I would remind Members that he has a very good record, indeed one of the most outstanding records of any Member the Irish people elected to the European Parliament. Let me remind the Deputies on the other side that a member of Deputy Batt O'Keeffe's party once held three important offices at the same time — ministerial office, I think he was Minister for Labour; member of the Council of Ministers of the European Parliament and Lord Mayor of Dublin. That did not seem to cause any great heartache to Deputy Batt O'Keeffe or to anybody else at the time.

Mr. Martin

It was for a very brief period only.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

It is a measure of the influence of the person.

Mr. Molloy

I mention that in passing to Deputy Batt O'Keeffe.

Chairman

The Deputy without interruption.

Mr. Molloy

The last thing we should do is to start throwing stones because we might hit ourselves with some of them. The amendments tabled by Deputies Hogan and Sargent give us an opportunity to discusss the matter and this is probably the first time in a long time we have had the opportunity to do so. I subscribe very strongly to the principle enshrined in Deputy Hogan's amendment. We have not yet heard the Government's attitude from the Minister of State. I would have liked to have heard him before I spoke. I was holding back in the hope that he would speak before me but obviously Members wanted to speak. If the Minister is willing to indicate that he will accept this amendment there may not be a need to continue with the discussion, as the matter could be settled quickly. However, if he is not willing to agree to the amendment it may be necessary for Opposition Deputies to make further arguments in favour of the principle because it is an important matter.

We are inclined to think that our electoral system is perfection istelf because we lack experience of the electoral systems in other countries. It is the practice in some of the larger member states to elect members to the European Parliament from the list system. Some leading candidates offer themselves for election in order to maximise the vote for their party and I can instance Mr. Giscard d'Estaing among others, who having won the seat for their party subsequently resign and hand the seat to another candidate on the list.

That principle seems to be accepted throughout Europe. Perhaps the Minister will refer to the electoral system and the situation that obtains in other member states. We sit down with MEPs elected in this way in the Parliament and at council meetings and we do not question the electoral system or their right to be there. I understand that in some member states there is a legislative rule that one cannot be a member of any more than two elected bodies, that a list system operates where it has been the practice for MEP's to change and that the main candidate has not always been the member to complete the five year term in the European Parliament. My preference, however, is that those who offer themselves for election should do so with a genuine intention of serving and playing a full role for the full five year term of the Parliament.

The point I make about filling vacancies needs to be addressed. I think it is an anomaly that in the European Parliament Election Bill the instant filling of vacancies must be accomplished when a vacancy arises, yet the Government complacently accepts the situation where a vacancy to this House can remain for as long as 12 months or longer. There is still no indication from the Government parties when the by-elections will be held for the constituencies in Mayo and Dublin. It is ironic that the Minister introduces an amendment to extend from ten to 20 days the period within which the replacement candidate must confirm his intenion to accept the position. I do not know why this change is suggested.

Chairman

That is a separate amendment.

Mr. Molloy

As I have already outlined, amendment No. 2 may have the effect of distorting the proportional representation result in multiseat constituencies if one is obliged to resign instantly. In a by-election for one seat a completely different set of proportions apply. In all justice, amendment No. 4 is more equitable and would be acceptable to me.

Mr. Currie

There are restrictions on the length of speeches in the European Parliament.

Chairman

We believe in being fair to all Members and I believe I was quite lenient with Deputy Currie.

Mr. Molloy

Bhí mé ag iarraidh labhairt i nGaeilge agus i mBéarla.

Mr. McGrath

First, let me respond to Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, who accused my colleague, Deputy Currie, of begrudgery. I do not know what part of Deputy Currie's speech he heard or how he interpreted what he said. Deputy Currie quoted what prospective members of the Europan Parliament said in their own language and to accuse him of begrudgery because of that is totally out of order.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

It is very unfair to cast aspersions on any candidate going forward. I would prefer to give people the opportunity of going forward to make a major contribution.

Mr. McGrath

That is not what the Deputy said previously. The Deputy should say what he means.

It appears that members are generally in favour of the concept of one job per representative — in other words, if one is elected to represent a constituency in Dáil Éireann, one has enough to do to represent constituents there; and if one is elected to represent the electorate in Europe, there is certainly enough to do. A number of Deputies have mentioned the possibility of having a system of liaison between the European Paliament and this House. That would be very worthwhile, but I am not sure if the dual mandate is the best way to achieve that. I recall two or three weeks ago that when Deputy Cox, one of our two Members who holds the dual mandate, referred in his speech to the procedures in Europe, he received catcalls and comments from the Government side on his double jobbing. I am not sure that this is accepted in this House. Most people seem to be in favour of limiting people to representing a constituency in either the Dáil or in the European Parliament, but the big question is whether the Minister will accept this amendment.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

It makes me feel sick to have to listen to Deputies holding the high moral ground when talking about double jobbing. We are talking about something quite different. We have many good people in politics and it is a matter for the electorate to decide who will represent them in Parliament. The electorate is the best judge of the candidates for election. A Deputy in this House — he is not a member of my party — holds a dual mandate, but he has represented his constituency well for a long number of years.

It would be wrong of me to criticise a member of any party for holding a dual mandate. At election time political parties like to nominate candidates who will be successful in politics. People who secure seats in Europe are usually well known and have had long experience in this House. In many cases Deputies hold a dual mandate for only a short period of time. In most instances candidates decide before an election that they wish to run for the European Parliament and that should be acceptable.

I agree that neither Ministers or Ministers of State should be members of local authorities and should stand down voluntarily before it is mandatory. They are not in a position to sit on local authorities and should have a more independent status and role. Local authorities are influential bodies where major discussions take place.

Many Deputies are specialists in their fields of, say, agriculture, education or social welfare. The same applies to the European Parliament. Many of our MEPs are intelligent and able people and involved in influential committees at that level. I see no major conflict in regard to holding a dual mandate. I am disappointed that Fine Gael is trying to hype up this amendment on the basis of double jobbing and implying that it is the only party who can identify with the 300,000 unemployed. The amendments lack sincerity because of such inferences. I have no difficulty with Deputies Cox and Blaney or any other Deputy holding a dual mandate. Many people are critical of Deputy Cox. I have often been critical of his party and of Deputy Molloy from time to time. Deputy Cox is a specialist Deputy here and in the European Parliament. Good representation is very important. Many MEPs have returned to this House and made solid contributions on various European issues. People have called for MEPs to be granted an audience here and the dual mandate makes that possible.

Mr. Stagg

I thank Deputies Sargent and Hogan for tabling their amendments and It thank also other Deputies who contributed to this worthwhile debate. I understand the thinking behind the amendments and sympathise with the view that a person should not be a member of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament simultaneously.

The experience of public representatives who have combined the two roles has led to a general recognition that it is not practicable for one person to discharge effectively his or her duties in both parliaments. It is interesting to note that 13 of the 15 members elected to the European Parliament in the first direct elections in 1979 held a dual mandate. Only two of the 15 MEPs are members of both parliaments at present. That pattern is indicative of a more realistic attitude towards discharging a dual mandate. However, I must draw attention to the relevant European statute which governs elections to the parliament in tandem with national laws which specifically provides that membership of parliament shall be compatible with membership of parliament of a member state. I refer to article 5 of the Act of 20 September, 1979 which from a straightforward reading precludes us from including any provision in our electoral law to forbid a dual mandate.

Given that we cannot forbid the dual mandate under our national law, it falls to individual political parties to decide whether their members should seek to discharge the dual mandate. I understand that political parties tend to have a party rule effectively limiting the extent to which the dual mandate may be exercised. If parties do not decide to reject the concept it is a matter for the people in the final analysis to decide whether to vote for a candidate who proposes to exercise a dual mandate. We mst be realistic and recognise that at European election time parties are anxious to put forward well-known candidates who stand a good chance of success. In most cases that will mean persons who are already Members of the Oireachtas.

By and large, I agree with the sentiments behind the amendments but they cannot be accepted because they conflict with the specific provision of the European statute governing election to parliament.

Mr. Sargent

Bhí an-suim agam ins an méid a bhí le rá ag Teachtaí agus is léir go bhfuil an-suim ins an ábhair agus nach é seo deireadh and scéil. We should take stock of how we go about our business because, as is evident from the committee system, the Dáil workload is increasing and members of all parties should bear that in mind. It is regrettable that EC law allows a candidate to stand for election to two parliaments simultaneously. In my view that is an excuse for us to do nothing. Other member states may have got into trouble in this regard in the past, but they have gone beyond the EC and put legislation on their Statute Books which is not part of EC law. We could take similar action in this case.

I would be happy if Deputy Hogan's amendment was accepted as the sentiments in both our amendments are similar. However, my amendment includes a reference to other public elective bodies. Perhaps that is not a matter for today or for this committee, but it will need to be considered at some stage. This House has become more occupied with committees and the public find it difficult to understand the workings of the House at present. As Deputy Molloy stated, there are other aspects to it, such as the fothoghchán, which could bring about major changes for minority parties and naturally I would be interested in that.

The Commission for the Status of Women made its position clear on the matter of the dual mandate and called for us to take action before the next election. We should note that from the Commission's point of view the level of participation by women in politics leaves much to be desired and that is obvous in this Chamber. The tendency is for more men to be elected to Parliament and we must examine the structures which bring that about. The Commission stated that women would be more likely to become involved in politics if the dual mandate did not exist at various levels. In the case of the European Parliament and this Parliament we are talking about two jobs for which the salary is much more than that for two ordinary jobs. We must give example to other EC member states as well as following European legislation.

What the Minister said is not binding on us. He just said that it was compatible in the view of those in Europe who decided on that law.

Dr. Upton

The debate so far has been about concepts, notions and ideas that will lead to us being politically correct. I would remind the House that not so long ago people voted candidates into Parliament knowing they would not take their seats, in order to make a political point. We should not be too sweeping in our statements on political correctness. Distasteful as that process was to me, I still respect the right of the people to make a political point.

Mrs. Doyle

Is the Deputy running?

Dr. Upton

The Deputy is reading too many newspapers.

Mrs. Doyle

I am listening to the Deputy this morning, and it adds up to that too.

Mr. Hogan

The sentiments expressed with regard to the two amendments are expressed by all Members of the House. The experience in Fine Gael is that people who have been Members of the Oireachtas and subsequently became members of the European Parliament soon found out when they returned to contest a Dáil election, that the electorate were not too pleased that while serving as members of the European Parliament they now wished to seek re-election to Dáil Éireann.

Mr. Stagg

That is the answer.

Mr. Hogan

I was disappointed by Deputy Ned O'Keeffe's far from constructive contribution when he criticised Fine Gael for tabling this amendment. I am sure that both Deputies Ned O'Keeffe and Batt O'Keeffe and possibly Deputy Martin too, have whispered around the constituency that Deputy Cox does not have time to represent Cork South-Central as he is far away, representing Munster in Europe. I know whose Deputies are delighted to get Deputy Cox out of the way on a regular basis but the attitude displayed by the Deputies is "holier than thou". Deputy Batt O'Keeffe said he is very happy with the dual mandate, but there is an ulterior motive in regard to that. If Fianna Fáil and Labour oppose dual memberhship of the national Parliament and the European Parliament they should accept the amendment.

Mr. Martin

We are democrats.

Mr. Hogan

If Deputies feel strongly that a Member can only adequately represent one parliament they should accept the amendment. Fine Gael is in a unique position because of the experience of some of our members. We have been given our experience since the first direct elections to the European Parliament in 1979. Deputy Ó Cuív said that political parties might wish to put forward a strong candidate in the European elections and then pull him out in order to allow in a substitute, that to win the number of seats is the important thing to show that the party is doing well in any electoral contest. That is a danger, but the experience of the last 14 years indicates otherwise. When people are elected to the European Parliament they rarely wish to return to the national Parliament. The only time Fine Gael had to make a substitute to the European Parliament was when a former member of the European Parliament, Mr. Richie Ryan, was appointed as a member of the Court of Auditors because of his talent. Admittedly, he was in the right place at the right time. Indeed, Mr. Barry Desmond benefited from that recently and I am sure he will be a very competent member of the Court of Auditors. I wish him well in his appointment. I know that Deputy Upton is also delighted that Mr. Desmond has been appointed as a member of the Court of Auditors.

Some Deputies suggested that members of the European Parliament can make an important contribution in the House if they are also Members of the Dáil. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs was recently established and part of their remit was to allow members of the European Parliament a right of audience at that committee in order to allow them to make a contribution in relation to European matters. That one must have a dual mandate in order to make a meaningful contribution here on European matters is not even a debating point at this stage.

In the light of our experience we are in a good position to suggest a practical solution to the problem of dual membership of both Parliaments. Fine Gael at the moment have four MEPs who are full-time members of the European Parliament. We are delighted that we have sufficient talent to ensure that we have full-time members of the European Parliament without jeopardising our prospects for winning seats in those Dáil constituencies. That underlines our lack of fear about dual membership being resolved by legislation.

The Minister stated that under European Community legislation he might have difficulty in accepting this amendment. Even though we are in the European Union there is diversity in member states about how regulations, directives and legislation are implemented. We could amend the Treaty in order to make it a condition of that legislation that dual membership would be operated on the basis that members must, if elected to Dáil Éireann, cease to be members of the European Parliament forthwith and allow the first person on the list to take his or her place.

This amendment reflects the changing role of the members of the European Parliament. More powers have been given to the European Parliament and we expect members to do a good job. How can they do it if we do not give them the opportunity to do it? Only in legislation will we get the agreement of all political parties to put forward candidates who will work on a full-time basis in one Parliament or the other.

Mr. Martin

Unfortunately, there has been an element of political point scoring.

Mr. Hogan

I did not introduce it.

Mr. Martin

I am disappointed that our fundamental criticism of these amendments has not been dealt with. Our criticism is that whereas people may agree that it is not possible to serve two masters, there is a fundamental reluctance on this side of the House to interfere with the right of people to decide. These amendments involve an infringement of a fundamental democratic right, the right to vote for a representative whom one deems fit to represent one either in Dáil Éireann or the European Parliament. The acceptance of these amendments would involve a very serious encroachment on that democratic right. If this is accepted, what is next on the agenda?

Mrs. Doyle

One has a right to be offered a candidate who can fulfil the remit.

Mr. Martin

One is entitled to vote for whom one wants.

Mrs. Doyle

One can vote for the candidate who presents himself. One is entitled to vote for a candidate who can fulfil the job description.

Mr. Martin

Yes. We are setting tight parameters. We are deciding for the people. We are narrowing the choice and we have no right to do so. I would question whether or not it is even constitutional to accept these amendments. There is no basis for these amendments because a fundamental basis of our democracy is that the people have a right to choose their representatives.

Mrs. Doyle

They can only choose from the names listed on the ballot paper. Where has the Deputy been? They cannot pick anyone they like.

Chairman

Will the Deputy please allow the Deputy in possession to continue? He did not interrupt the Deputy.

Mr. Finucane

The Deputy is being confrontational.

Mr. Martin

I am not, I am trying to make a valid point.

Mr. Finucane

The Deputy is being provocative; I assume he will allow us to respond.

Mr. Martin

It is a very valid point.

Éamon Ó Cuív

To respond to the points raised by Deputy Hogan, let me repeat that if this amendment is accepted and a Member of the Dáil who has been elected to the European Parliament is given a choice at a subsequent general election we will leave ourselves open to the possibility that parties will choose to run big name candidates who will later withdraw and transfer the seat to someone else. A different system is operated in Europe. Instead of the replacement system they operate a list system. Unlike Deputy Molloy, I disagree with the idea that parties should run big name candidates who will quietly withdraw after a period of time and transfer the seat to a person included on a list. I am not interested in what systems they operate in Europe but so far as I am concerned this is wrong in principle. The people should know who they are electing and that person should continue to hold the seat unless something untoward happens.

The amendment states that candidates who are Members of either House of the Oireachtas shall cease to be a Member of either the European Parliament or the Oireachtas at the following general election. However, at that stage they shall cease automatically to be a Member of the Oireachtas unless they are re-elected.

The point should be made that there is no provision in the amendment for the reverse procedure. In other words, a member of the European Parliament could ad infinitum continue to hold a dual mandate because they were elected to that Parliament first.

The amendment could also work against the interests of small groups. The reality is that the bigger parties in the Dáil do not have any Members who hold a dual mandate even though their members hold most of the seats available to us in the European Parliament. Indeed, there is one Member of a minority party who holds a dual mandate. If we impose restrictons the members of smaller parties will be presented with more problems than the members of bigger parties. Therefore, many would argue that the amendment would militate against the interests of smaller groups.

Mr. Currie

In this debate far too many attempts have been made to score political points. This is unfortunate and unnecessary. However, some constructive suggestions have been made, not just by this side of the House. I agree with a number of the points made by Deputy Ó Cuív, particularly the point he made about big name candidates. That matter is worthy of consideration.

While I agree with some of the points made by Deputy Martin I disagree with others. He mentioned — this is worthy of consideration — that restrictions would be imposed on democracy. I can understand that because at the end of the day the master is the electorate; the people will decide whether we are right to run for election. However, I only agree with his argument up to a point. We already impose certain restrictions on those who offer themselves to the electorate. For example, we are not allowed to run for Parliament unless we are over 18 years of age and we are not allowed to run for the Presidency unless we are over 35 years of age. In addition, we are not allowed to run for Parliament if we have been convicted of certain offences or declared bankrupt. I ask the Deputy to take those matters into consideration.

Mr. Martin

I have.

Mr. Currie

Some restrictions could be considered good while others could be considered bad. As there is virtual unanimity on the question of the dual mandate this restriction proposed by Fine Gael could be considered good.

I have come under fire from Deputy Batt O'Keeffe in particular, who used the word "begrudgery". While people can disagree with me, and many terms could be used, the word "begrudgery" is not one that I would have used.

More than one potential candidate for the European Parliament has said that the only reason they would run is for the money. Let me put the matter in context. As anyone with experience of working in Brussels — I worked there at a quasipolitical level — will know it is a difficult and time consuming job. Members of the European Parliament face other problems also. For example, they have to live away from home, away from their wives, families and friends. This problem is not confined to Irish representatives only, it is also faced by representatives of other countries. I know of people whose marriages have run into difficulty. It is a trying job and one should not seek it if they also wish to play a proper role in this House which imposes particular responsibilities. Earlier reference was made to John Hume but he does not find himself in a similar position given that it would be necessary for Members of the European Parliament, in order to sustain a Government, to be here all the time. I ask Deputy O'Keeffe not to take my remarks out of context or to use the word "begrudgery". That is the last word he should have used.

Despite the attempts to score political points this is a useful debate. Apparently, a certain attitude has been adopted on all sides of the House on the dual mandate. In accepting the amendment we emphasise the importance we attach to the need for people to do one job properly.

Ms McManus

I am touched that Deputy Ó Cuív has expressed concern about the smaller parties but we will probably survive. However, I cannot stomach the remarks made by Deputy Martin about democracy and the right of people to choose. He represents a Government which has effectively disenfranchised people living in two constituencies. This means that they have not had the right to express their views through the ballot box.

Chairman

This is not relevant to the Bill.

Ms McManus

It has been raised on a number of occasions today and it is relevant. The point I am trying to make is that in a democracy people have the right to choose.

Mr. Martin

Unlike the Deputy's party, we never transferred seats in such a cynical manner.

Ms McManus

I will deal with that matter in a few moments. The people should at least be given an opportunity to make decisions. However, the people who live in those two constituencies have not been given that opportunity. There are two jobs that could be filled.

The sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Ms McManus

The Minister seems to be indicating that he cannot accept these amendments, even if he wished to, because they would be in conflict with European legislation. The logical tendency in the future will be towards a separation between the role of an MEP and that of a TD because the volume of work involved in both cases is so great. There will be a natural evolution towards the separation of the two roles, particularly with the increased power lying with the European Parliament as opposed to the non-elected institutions of the European Community. I would point to the experience of Deputy De Rossa who was elected to both the national Parliament and the European Parliament. He achieved that dual mandate on the same day. There was no question of his no being up front about what he was standing for. That was quite clear. People went out to vote and he was overwhelmingly elected to both parliaments. The people were quite happy to give him that mandate and no one would argue that his performance in both parliaments was not of a tremendously high standard. However, as the workload increased, he has to make a decision between the two, and he choose to stay with this Parliament. As time goes on there will be an natural evolution towards that position.

Deputy Martin raised the possibility of a constitutional difficulty and was treated rather dismissively. I suspect there may well be such a difficulty if these amendments are allowed. Although the principle is fair enough and the separation of the two responsibilities will come about anyway, legislating for it would bring us in conflict with European law and possibly with the Constitution. From that point of view I have a difficulty with the amendment.

Mr. Stagg

It is undesirable and impracticable for Members to serve both here and in Europe. The difficulty with the genuine attempts by Members to address that matter is the Act of European law which indicates that one is allowed to be a member of both parliaments. Article 5 of the Act of 20 September, 1976 states that the office of representative in the assembly shall be compatible with membership of the parliament of the member state. While that remains, it is not open to this House to legislate in that regard because Ireland would then be in conflict with its European partners in the matter.

Deputy Sargent made the point that that regulation encourages people to seek a dual mandate. I would say it allows rather than encourages. Under European legislation one is allowed to hold a dual mandate. To prevent that would put Ireland in conflict with Europe. In the interim I suggest that political parties do as has been suggested in the House today and introduce internal party regulations to bring about the desired effect. As stated by Deputy McManus, the people are the final arbiters in the matter.

In reply to Deputy Horgan's very positive case, the treaties provide for a unified electoral system in all European Community states. Discussions are ongoing at various levels within the Community on that matter and in that context the issue of the dual mandate should and can be seriously considered. In view of that and the difficulty there would be if we were to accept it, I ask Deputy Horgan not to put his amendment to a vote.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Chairman

Amendment No. 3 is in the name of Deputy Hogan. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are alternatives. Amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 6 may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Hogan

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 2, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) Persons who are not normally resident in the State but who are citizens of the State shall be eligible to vote for representatives to the European Parliament subject to certain provisions contained in regulations to be made by the Minister for the Environment.".

This is to allow discussion on the principle of allowing our emigrants a say in our parliamentary system. In this context we are talking about the European Parliament. Fine Gael supports in principle the extension of voting rights in elections to people who live outside our jurisdiction. There are practical considerations in terms of giving our emigrants a rightful say in the Houses of the Oireacthas and in the European Parliament. Now that we are members of the European Union it can be stated that citizens of this State who reside in other member states are members of a broader European family. The most practical way of giving them a say is to allow them to vote in their country of residence for the candidates in the member state in which they reside. That is certainly a point of view that I have great sympathy with.

There is another body of opinion that suggests that people who, for economic or other reasons, have left this jurisdiction and become resident in another member state should have an opportunity to vote for candidates to the European Paraliment in the Euro constituencies in this jurisdiction. We might have to amend the Constitution in order to implement this. It would also mean that people who are not resident in the State would have a major influence on the outcome of such elections and that also must be taken into account. For quite some time Fine Gael's position has been that emigrants should be given a voice by allowing their representation in Seanad Éireann. This would overcome the legal and constitutional difficulties of granting voting rights to emigrants. I look forward to hearing the view of the Minister of State on this matter. He is the member of a party that introduced a Private Members' Bill on this matter. He is charged with the responsibility of implementing the Programme for Government which clearly enunciates that voting rights should be given to our emigrants. The Minister of State would give us the benefit of his Department's experience and allow a teasing out of the possibilities of permitting people who have left this jusidiction, often not of their own volition, a connection with the Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament.

Ms McManus

The Minister must reply to the question of why there is no provision for our emigrants in this Bill and why Opposition Deputies put forward amendments in this regard, as in the case of amendments Nos. 3 and 5. Those amendments propose extending the franchise to those who should have a right to exercise it. Considering the Minister's party position during the years, I am surprised he did not encompass voting rights for emigrants within his Bill. It is remarkable that approximately 60,000 EC nationals living in Ireland can vote in European elections but approximately 600,000 Irish people living in other EC member states cannot vote in European elections held in Ireland. We are now the only EC member state that does not provide voting rights for our emigrants, and although there is much talk about how important they are, in effect we disregard them and treat them as second class citizens. Other countries, for example, Denmark, Holland and Portugal, have systems whereby their emigrants living in other countries can vote in home elections to the European Parliament. Other countries are more generous in that regard. We seem to pay lip service to emigrants and their rights without taking any action to grant them those rights. There is no constitutional bar to providing our emigrants with the opportunity to vote for Irish members of the European Parliament. It is said that we are good Europeans but we seem to be out of step in regard to voting rights when account is taken of the position in other EC member states. It may end up that the granting of voting rights to emigrants may be forced upon us to correct this anomaly.

Under the Maastricht Treaty there is an opt out clause regarding the universal arrangement for voting for the European Parliament and I understand that Luxembourg will take up that clause. That means that an Irish person living in Luxembourg for less than five years will not be entitled to vote in European elections in Ireland or Luxembourg. That person will not be entitled to vote in the European elections in Ireland because he or she lives in Luxembourg or in the European elections in Luxembourg because he or she has not been living in Luxembourg for five years. One cannot stand for parliament in Luxembourg until one has been resident there for ten years. If Luxembourg takes up that opt out clause, which other countries may also avail of, there will be a large number of Irish emigrants who will not be entitled to vote in European elections. Instead of providing opportunities this Bill closes options that exist.

Our national football team is largely made up of people with the most tenuous connections with Ireland. Everyone supports the team as the national football team and are particularly pleased when they do well. However, we cut the link immediately with young people who go abroad and add to the sense of dislocation they experience by having to leave home. Many of them do this because they cannot find work at home. That is a brutal experience for many people. The loss of voting rights to emigrants in the European elections is significant not only to those emigrants but also to their parents who regard this loss as the severing of another connection.

Children are taught in school about the importance of voting and being part of a large European Community. However, this Bill is sadly lacking in that it could have provided a connection for emigrants to their home country by including them in the electorate. People vote for many reasons, for example, traditional allegiance, personal desires, national aspirations and local connections. It is all very well to say that if one goes to live in France one can vote in the French European elections, but that is not the same as having a vote in the Irish European elections. Within this Bill it is possible to provide a connection for emigrants with their home country by extending voting rights to them.

President Robinson graphically highlighted how important that link is by putting a light in a window in Aras an Uachtaráin. We are failing in that commitment by not accomodating the desires of many emigrants to have voting rights under this Bill. Many people leave and do not come back but there are many who believe they are disenfranchised because they have no input into elections at home. With respect to Fine Gael, I do not believe that providing a few seats in the Seanad for emigrants is the same thing as allowing them to cast their vote.

Mr. Currie

It is more practical.

Ms McManus

In regard to the European Parliament there is no constitutional bar that would impede an accommodation of this idea and I ask the Minister to consider it seriously.

Mr. Martin

At the outset, I would have had a positive approach towards granting voting rights to emigrants, but it is appropriate that we sort out the position on the domestic parliamentary front first before including radical policy changes in respect of European parliamentary elections. Our approach in this regard has been somewhat simplistic. Many people have supported voting rights for emigrants but it gives rise to many questions. I would not propose putting this matter on the long finger and I would welcome a debate in the House on it. I have met many people who hold different views in this regard.

In the old days, when democratic systems were established, the catch phrase was "no taxation without representation". In a more modern context, representation is extended significantly to include areas where people reside. Representatives affect the quality of life enjoyed by citizens, their local environment and so on and in that context such people should have a right to vote for their representatives.

This Bill is introduced in the context of the Maastricht Treaty and provides for residents in any EC member state, even non-nationals, to vote in the European parliamentary election for representatives in the area in which they reside. That makes good sense but people may argue that because of traditions and ties non-nationals should be entitled to vote for candidates in their home country. That would tend to go against the European ethos. We are trying to break down insularity and barriers and provide greater integration. There should be no great psychological barrier to Irish people voting for candidates in Brussels, France, or wherever, if they have been living and working there for a considerable period of time. It is logical that if one is working and paying taxes in an EC country one should have a greater desire to vote for one's local representative in the area in which one lives rather than for an Irish candidate.

In fairness to Fine Gael, that party has advanced the view that emigrants should have a voice in the Seanad. I would not ridicule that proposal as quickly as would some parties. There is need for pragmatism. The question of extending voting rights to emigrants in Dáil elections would involve a long process and many administrative difficulties would arise. It is a matter that needs considerable thought and detailed planning. Acceptance of the Fine Gael proposal would at least give some voice to emigrants. There is a need for us to hear what emigrants have to say on issues that affect them in their adopted countries, but the matter cannot be dealt with in the context of this Bill. This Bill was introduced primarily with a view to the next European elections in June and there are practical restrictions and difficulties in that context. It is unrealistic to suggest that we could embrace the entire issue of voting rights for emigrants in the context of this Bill.

Mr. Currie

There is a very strong argument in principle for granting votes to emigrants. This is a subject to which many of us would be emotionally attached in terms of the wider Irish family and the Irish diaspora, the traditional attachment of our emigrants to this country, their wish to be involved with us and our wish to be involved with them. However there are practical difficulties involved. We cannot hide that fact and should not attempt to do so. When we talk in terms of emigrants who wish to vote in our elections we should recognise that there are also emigrants who have no desire to do so. As a result of my involvement in the last presidential election and because of the emphasis that was given in that campaign to involvement of the wider Irish family, I received considerable correspondence, most of it strongly in favour of the involvement of emigrants in our elections. A sizeable minority strongly feel that these people should exercise their votes in countries where they put down their roots and where their families are living. We must accept that there is a difference of opinion in this regard, but in principle I remain strongly in favour of involvement of our emigrants here.

There are also practical difficulties to be overcome and that is the reason Fine Gael eventually decided on representation of emigrants in the Seanad. There appear to be constitutional reasons to tread carefully in relation to this matter and some of the best constitutional advice has been sought in this regard. There are other difficulties which, because of my previous political incarnation, concern me more than other Deputies. I am aware of some of the "difficulties" that can arise in relation to postal votes. I frankly admit I have seen that problem from both sides, in trying to stop postal voting and, on occasions, encouraging people to apply for postal votes, a practice which is a traditional pastime in the part of the country from which I come. It is not unknown for elections to be won and lost on the basis of the postal vote. I know of electoral areas where the postal vote has been in excess of 20 per cent. The extent to which the slightly less than constitutional parties, with a certain discipline that ordinary political parties do not have, are involved is usually noticeable when one looks at the number of applications for postal votes and from where those applications come.

I am aware that, the Irish being supremely political animals, such practices need not be necessarily confined to that abnormal political entity north of the Border. I am referring not only to the Irish; other nationalities take an interest in these matters also. There is no doubt — I am speaking here about Dáil elections — that if safeguards are not provided for many opportunities may present themselves in areas far from here which could have the effect in constituencies of deciding who is elected, particularly to the last seat in multi-member constituencies. In European elections the problem is probably a lesser one in that a much more concentrated effort would be required and the achievement to be obtained in terms of Irish political affairs would be less in relation to membership of the European Parliament than to membership of this House.

If we accept that someone resident in New York, Brisbane, South Africa or elsewhere is entitled to vote in a Dáil election and therefore appears on the electoral register, can we then turn around and say: "We do not want you to vote in a European election"? We could say that on the basis that one parliament is elected for the whole of Europe and in theory it should not matter whether the vote is exercised in Dublin West, Paris, Bonn or elsewhere. However, the position is different for a person resident outside the European Community, in Milwaukee or Bangladesh. What is the argument in favour of these people having a vote in a European election? I am teasing out some of the problems that may arise and perhaps when I read what I have said I will find answers to my own questions. There are sufficient problems in this area for us seriously to consider the matter. In principle, I am strongly in favour of extending voting rights to emigrants, but the practical difficulties are considerable and we would need to know exactly where we are going.

Dr. Upton

This has been one of the issues which, in the last year or so, has been debated at length in the Houses of the Oireachtas. It was debated at great length during discussion of the Electoral Bill in the Seanad and on that occasion I spoke very strongly in favour of granting voting rights to emigrants. It was again discussed under the recent Presidential Elections Bill and since then I have not changed my mind on the matter. The idea of granting voting rights to emigrants is a worthwhile one. I understand that the Government is considering this matter — as far as I am aware, it is part of the Programme for Government — and a discussion document will be published on it. We should not gloss over the difficulties involved in granting voting rights to emigrants such as the period of time an emigrant should be out of the country before they cease to have an entitlement to vote and the period of time they should have spent in a country before they are entitled to vote. Will people who left the country before they reached voting age be entitled to vote? Is it correct that such people should be entitled to vote? Will people who emigrated 30-40 years ago and never returned to Ireland, like some Irish-Americans, be entitled to vote? These questions have to be discussed and examined. I accept a case can be made for giving a person who has emigrated for a short period of time the right to vote.

With regard to the European Parliament elections, I agree with Deputy Martin that Irish people residing in Europe should be entitled to a vote in such elections. Indeed, it might be more satisfactory in many instances if these people cast their votes in the country in which they are living rather than in Ireland. I presume no one is making the case that such people would have two votes in these elections.

Reference has been made to the constitutional questions which arise. However, practical questions also arise in relation to postal voting, to which Deputy Currie referred. Careful consideration will need to be given to the control of postal voting, particularly voting by Irish emigrants in America. Some of those involved in the Irish-American lobby who has been living in America for a long time regard Ireland as very green in every respect. Some of these individuals are very removed from the reality on the ground and are overcome with sentimentality when they think of Ireland. As the years go by they tend to see everything in Ireland as green——

Mr. Martin

Which green is the Deputy referring to?

Dr. Upton

Real green.

Mr. Sargent

Dath uaine.

Dr. Upton

True green. A question also arises about the voting procedures for migrants in this country. While this issue may not come within the terms of this Bill, it is worth considering. Only this morning I had a discussion with a rural colleague about the desirability of holding elections on a Sunday. Having regard to the cost of transporting constituents from Dublin to rural constituencies to vote, he felt that Sunday would be a more appropriate day for the holding of elections. I am sure my rural colleagues in the House understand and appreciate the problems encountered by that rural Deputy. One of the blessings of representing a Dublin constituency is that one does not have to deal with such problems. Many Dublin representatives would not have the resources to transport their constituents from rural areas to Dublin or might not be politically clued-in to avail of such resources. I want to emphasise the practical difficulties involved in granting votes to emigrants. I look forward to the paper on this issue which the Government has promised it will produce.

Mr. Sargent

Níl a fhios agam cad déarfaidh an tAire faion gceist seo ach de bharr go bhfuil tacaíocht léirithe ag an pháirtí cheana féin mar gheall ar dhaoine atáá easportáil ón dtír, b'fhéidir go bhfuil tuiscint agus leigheas aige ar an scéal; nó b'fhéidir go dtabharfaidh sé tacaíocht don leasú, ach feicfimid.

This is a perfectly reasonable amendment. From my assessment of it I do not see any problems with it from a constitutional point of view. Technically speaking, the proposal in this amendment is perfectly feasible, given the advances in the area of telecommunications and the possibility of postal voting. Therefore, the arguments for not accepting this amendment do not carry the same weight as those for not accepting other amendments. If we do not give our emigrants a right to vote in elections we will further alienate them. Very few people emigrate voluntarily and their feeling of alienation is further compounded when elections are held at home and they have no say in the outcome.

When I stood in the 1989 European elections a branch of the Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, was formed in London with a view to writing letters to people in Ireland asking them for their support. That was as much as they could do. The connection these people still feel with Ireland has to be acknowledged. If Irish people living abroad had some input into Irish elections I believe it would encourage them to reinvest in the economy and use their motivation skills to help this country realise its potential. Unfortunately, the policies we are pursuing are having the net effect of exporting our brainiest people.

Le fada an lá is cuimhin liomsa, mar a luaigh an Teachta a chuaigh romham, busanna ag bailiú le cheile anseo i lár na cathrach agus daoine ag dul go dtí contaetha ar fud na tíre chun vóta a chaitheamh. Tá an-chomparáid, dar liomsa, idir an scéal atáá phlé againn anseo maidir leis an Eoraip — má ghlacaimid gur cuid den Chomhphobal Eorpach muid — agus an scéal i leith na ndaoine ó Chontae Chiarraí, Chontae an Chabháin agus Chontae na Gaillimhe atá ag teacht go dtí Baile Átha Cliath ag obair agus ag am toghcháin nach bhfuil ag iarraidh vóta a chaitheamh sa chathair cé gur Éireannaigh iad, ach san áit gurb as dóibh.

I do not agree with Deputy Martin that this is brought about by insular feelings. People who want to vote in their home constituencies want to retain some connection with their roots. Rather than being insular, these people are showing a depth of character. Many people who emigrate retain connections with Ireland which go far deeper than simply birthright. It is very important that we facilitate the many thousands of Irish people who live outside Ireland but who still have deep connections with the country. The acceptance of this amendment would be to the advantage of everyone.

Chairman

The Minister has indicated that he wishes to come in. I will then call Deputies McManus and Molloy in that order.

Mr. Stagg

If the other Deputies wish to get in first I do not mind.

Mr. Molloy

We would prefer to hear what the Minister has to say first. We want to see if what he says is consistent with Labour Party policy.

Mr. Stagg

We are always consistent. The amendments provide for the registration as European electors of Irish citizens resident in other member states who are not registered as such electors in the member state of residence. The amendments envisage a scheme of voting for such electors being provided for in regulations to be made by the Minister. Deputy Hogan, Deputy Molloy and Deputy McManus are being generous to a fault in suggesting that the Minister should have the power to make such regulations. They are more trusting than I would be if I were in their position.

Mr. Molloy

Would the Minister of State not trust the Minister?

Mr. Stagg

I would not be in favour of giving any Minister in any Government the power to make skeletal legislation by way of regulations. That it not a good form of law. I think that is what is being suggested in the three amendments.

Mr. Molloy

The regulations would have to be approved by the Dáil.

Mr. Stagg

If I were to accept Deputy McManus's amendment, the right of European citizens living in Ireland to vote here in European elections would be abolished. Therefore, the amendments would need to be re-examined. Indeed, I would go further and say that Deputy Molloy seems to be stating the obvious for the vast majority of people outside of this State in that they are requesting the right to vote in European elections. The Maastricht Treaty will give them the right to vote in European elections in all European Community countries.

Mr. Currie

The European Union.

Mr. Stagg

I am not sure whether the proper title has been agreed. There was some doubt about that last night.

Mr. Currie

Did the Minister of State not listen to the advice of one of his fellow Ministers of State?

Mr. Molloy

My amendment refers to outside the State.

Mr. Stagg

That is so but many people residing outside the State will have the right to vote in European elections as is requested. The vast majority of Irish emigrants will have the right to vote as is requested in both amendments. The amendments are not specific as to the countries outside the State but I presume it is universal.

Mr. Molloy

They cannot vote here.

Mr. Stagg

I take it that the intention was to give all Irish emigrants, whether in Europe or otherwise, the right to vote in Ireland.

Mr. Molloy

That is what the amendment states.

Mr. Stagg

That is not clear in the amendment.

Mr. Molloy

It is.

Mr. Stagg

The Government's position on this issue was made abundantly clear recently. The position of the Labour Party, which was referred to, is clear also. It was stated in a Labour Party Bill introduced in the last Dáil and that remains our position.

The Programme for a Partnership Government accepts in principle that there should be a constitutional change to give voting rights to emigrants and indicates that this issue would be further examined. The examination, which is ongoing, is a matter initially for the Minister for the Environment and all options will be considered. No decisions have yet been taken by the Minister or the Government.

Unlike the situation appertaining to national elections, granting the right to vote to emigrants in European elections would not require, as has been stated, an amendment to the Constitution. However, it would be quite inappropriate to introduce voting rights for emigrants in a piecemeal fashion when there is an ongoing examination of the fundamental issues aimed at assessing all the options and their implications so that a responsible and coherent decision can be taken by the Oireachtas and, if appropriate, by the people.

We should await the outcome of that examination. As it is ongoing, and there is a commitment in the Programme for Government in this regard, any attempt to go beyond that in this Bill would be inappropriate. Up to now, only emigrants living in the United Kingdom, Belgium and the Netherlands could vote in European elections. Under the Maastricht Treaty, Irish citizens living in the European Community will now have the right to vote where they are in residence.

Deputy McManus raised a point concerning Luxembourg. We understand that arising from the fact that Irish citizens living abroad do not presently have the right to vote at home in such elections, they will not be affected by Luxembourg opting out of the regulation. In any event, that is only at a draft stage and no decision has been made one way or the other in that regard.

I do not intend to be drawn into a debate about the merits or otherwise of giving votes to emigrants because there is a Government examination of the matter in hand. However, I wish to make it clear that I am not opposed to giving votes to emigrants and my party's position on that is clear. The Programme for Government indicates also how far this issue has progressed. I am not opposed to what has been stated in the amendments but I am not in a position at this time to say that they should be accepted. We must wait for another day — not too far away — to get a definite decision on the format of legislation.

Ms McManus

A point was raised earlier concerning postal votes. The problem is not that there are too many postal votes but that there are too few. Representing a maritime constituency, as I do, I am aware that many merchant seamen are angry that they cannot vote in elections when they are away from home. However, that is not the issue in relation to this proposal.

We are talking about the European Parliament, a body which encompasses the entire land mass set by the boundaries of the European Community. If we were to regard that as an entity, it would put a different complexion on where and how we can vote.

My amendment is different from the others in that I am recommending that people living in this State and member states should have a vote in elections to the European Parliament. We are specifying who we are talking about, that as members of the European Community we should effectively have the right to choose whether we will vote at home or in the country of our residence.

It is interesting that the Deputy raised the point about rural voters travelling home to vote. They are enabled to do so at present. A person living in south Wicklow who is working in Dublin can choose to go home to vote in south Wick-low or to put their name on the electoral register in Dublin. We should be facilitating people who have left Ireland and reside in the larger European "home", to which we frequently refer, to vote in European elections.

I assure the Minister that the statement in the Joint Programme for Government is not sufficient to satisfy me in regard to this Bill. The Minister said he is not opposed to the idea of emigrants having the right to vote but in this Bill he is opposing the right of Irish emigrants living in the European Community to vote in elections to the European Parliament when they wish to do so at home.

Mr. Stagg

At this time.

Ms McManus

He does not accept the general principle that as members of the European Community special arrangements can be made for emigrants. Other countries have done so and it is extraordinary that in regard to Luxembourg there may be an exemption. Why? If our people living in another member state cannot vote in Ireland that places us in a sort of freak relationship with the home country. That is why we will be exempt if Luxembourg introduce this restriction. That is not good enough. The idea that somehow the system is open to abuse is yesterday's problem. We are now living in the era of technology and other countries have dealt with this problem and provided their citizens with the right to vote. I cannot understand why we do not do the same. We have the opportunity and we do not have a constitutional problem. If that right is not granted it will be regarded as a clear statement to our emigrants living in other member states that we do not want to treat them as equally as other Europeans are treated.

Mr. Molloy

I find it extraordinary to be debating an electoral Bill of this type with a Labour Minister telling us that in November 1993 this Government is not prepared to extend a vote to Irish citizens living abroad who have reached the voting age of 18. I sat here in March 1991 when the Labour Party in Opposition introduced a Bill in which they proposed as party policy the extension of voting rights to emigrants. Many members of the Labour Party contributed to that debate, including the Leader of the party, and they ridiculed the Fianna Fáil opposition to the extension of the vote to emigrants. During that period I was a member of the then Coalition Government, when my party's position was one of favouring the extension of the vote to emigrants. Unfortunately, in the Programme for Government that the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil drew up, the reference to votes for emigrants was to the effect that the matter would be examined. In the course of the debate on that issue the then Minister for the Environment, former Deputy Pádraig Flynn — ironically now a Commissioner of the European Community, the very place about which we are speaking under the provisions of this Bill — stated that the commitment in the programme had been fulfilled, in other words, that the matter had been considered, that that was that, that the only obligation the Fianna Fáil side felt to the commitment to do something serious about extending the vote to emigrants was to consider it and, having considered it and rejected it, felt they had fulfilled that commitment.

There was a review of that Programme for Government and a second or updated programme was entered into for the remainder of the period of the two parties in office in which there was a commitment between the then Taoiseach and the Progressive Democrats, that provided there were no constitutional obstacles, there was agreement in principle to extending votes to emigrants and that, if there was a constitutional obstacle, the matter would be pursued.

I have seen all of the papers produced by the Departments for the Environment and Foreign Affairs in relation to extending votes to emigrants. The principal argument advanced in those documents is the one on the part of the Attorney General stating that a constitutional referendum would be necessary to extend voting rights to emigrants, to Irish citizens residing outside the State.

When the Labour Party entered into Government, had they inquired about this, they would have discovered very quickly that that was the position. Although it is 12 months since the last general election the Labour Party and Fianna Fáil have now been in Government over nine months during which time there has been no move of any kind to bring forward legislative proposals leading on to a referendum on this issue; there has been no commitment to do so. There has been this continuous waffle to the effect that the matter is under consideration.

The studies undertaken showed that all member states of the EC, with the exception of Ireland, extended the vote, in some form or other for different elections to all their citizens residing outside their states. When one travels around other democracies worldwide one finds that the vote for citizens residing outside of the states concerned in quite extensive. Yet we here are afraid to effect the change.

On the evening that the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1991 was being debated — the Labour Party were proposing it and the Fine Gael Party were supporting it — I spoke for the Progressive Democrats and said that my party supported it in principle but that we did not feel that the country would thank us for bringing down the Government on this issue. I made quite clear what our party position was but our partners in Government were not then prepared to travel the road.

Therefore, the only reason the vote has not been extended to emigrants is because the Fianna Fáil Party has not yet made up its mind whether it is prepared to give the vote to emigrants. Yet when Fianna Fail Ministers and Deputies travel abroad and meet emigrant groups in, say, England, New York and other places, this issue arises at every single one of those meetings; I know this. Those Ministers and Deputies have no hesitation in telling those emigrant groups that they support the extension of votes to emigrants. For example, the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, when meeting with emigrant groups in New York, told them that he was in favour of extending the vote to emigrants. Several other Ministers on many occasions have given the same commitment. It is the height of hypocrisy for members of the Government to tell groups — and they accept it in all good faith — that it was their policy, that they intended to do this while, at the same time whenever any effort is made to bring it in they oppose it.

I should have expected that long before this Bill came before the House the Labour Party, who were blazing a trail on votes for emigrants when in Opposition, would have moved this issue — if they were sincere about it — because of the reference to it in the Programme for Government.

It is absolutely pathetic to sit here and hear the Minister of State, Deputy Stagg, say today that this matter is premature, that it is under consideration by the Government, that the Opposition parties should have patience, should wait until the Government have completed the very serious study they are undertaking. I should say that all these studies were undertaken when we were in Government.

Mr. Stagg

But they voted against the Bill.

Mr. Molloy

We voted against a Bill which had been introduced by a member of the Minister's own party.

Mr. Stagg

And the Deputy has the cheek to say what he is now saying.

Mr. Molloy

No, I have put all of that on the record.

Mr. Stagg

The Deputy has a hard neck.

Mr. Molloy

I have not, I am being honest with the House. We were placed in a very invidious position. We were honest and stated what was our position. We had only two members in Government then but now a substantial element of the Cabinet is comprised of Labour Party Ministers. They have 30-plus Members of the House. In view of that, one would have expected some evidence of commitment by now.

There is no evidence being presented here that this Government is in any way serious about fulfilling the commitment they have continuously given to emigrants to give them the vote in some form or other. Obviously it would have to be provided for in legislation which would have to be very carefully drafted and would necessitate special regulations being made. But the impression is being given, and was certainly given in the speech the then Minister Flynn made in the House on the occasion of that debate, that this was very complex, very difficult, as if it were something new he was being asked to create, which would totally distort the whole election process here, and that we could not possibly touch it with a 40-foot pole. Yet, whenever they met emigrant groups, they said they were in favour of it. There is a long road to be travelled by the Fianna Fáil Party on this issue. They fear change because change may not benefit them and they ignore the benefit it might bring to democracy. The electorate will have to be approached on this issue if it necessitates a referendum, a constitutional change, and allow them to decide. But there appears to be a great reluctance on the part of this Government even to allow the people decide the issue.

In the case of the European Parliament elections to which one of these amendments relates specifically, there is no reference whatsoever to a constitutional referendum being necessary, none whatsoever, all that is required is legislation, a suitable amendment, preferable drafted by the Minister to this Bill to extend the vote to Irish citizens living abroad in certain circumstances, the circumstances outlined in the amendment before us.

Therefore one wonders what is the point of this exercise, of all these great debates and Bills being brought forward. I think it was Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan, now Minister of State at the Department of the Marine, who introduced the Private Members' Bill on behalf of the Labour Party in 1991. Indeed, I note that Deputy Higgins, now Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, in a dhátheangach contribution on that occasion — I cannot quote his whole speech but it is on the record of the House anyway — in volume 406 of the Official Report of 12 March 1991 had this to say:

I hope it is never forgotten an masla do mhuintir na hÉireann, do na daoine atá díbeartha as an tír seo, agus nach ndéanfaidh siad dearmad go deo ar an Aire ná ar an Rialtas nach raibh sásta fiú amháin buncheart an vóta — nil-imid ag caint faoi na sonraí a bheag nó a mhór — a thabhairt dóibh in a dtír féin in ar chuir teip eacnamaíochta iachall orthu í a fhágáil ar imirce.

he hoped that the insult to emigrants would never be forgotten, that insult being on the part of the then Minister for the Environment in refusing the Labour Party Bill to extend votes to emigrants.

Participating in the same debate on the following day, 13 March 1991, as reported at column 1072 of the Official Report the present Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, Leader of the Labour Party stated:

In bringing this Bill before the Dáil the Labour Party decided to take a constructive and courageous step with regard to our emigrants living abroad. Emigration, especially the forced emigration which has been a feature of Irish economic and social life for the last few years, is an uprooting and alienating process. Many of our emigrants end up stateless people unable to vote in the country of which they are citizens, and unable to vote in the country in which they are resident. We in the Labour Party see no reason Irish citizens should be deprived of one of the most basic rights of any citizen simply because they have been forced to live abroad.

Ireland is one of the few remaining countries in the European Community which disenfranchises its emigrants.

He went on to say:

If the Government accept our Bill, this will bring Ireland into line with our EC partners who have provided voting rights for their emigrants in some or all of the elections.

That is the point I made earlier. We are not prepared to extend that right to our emigrants. How can the Irish people be expected to believe Deputy Spring if he speaks in such trenchant terms about the necessity to legislate for the extension of voting rights to emigrants and while in office as a Minister fails to deliver on that commitment? It adds to the cynicism about politicians in Ireland. It does no credit to the Labour Party or to the Minister himself.

Mr. Stagg

The Deputy is unbelievable.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister says I am unbelievable. I am referring to something which is recorded in the Official Report of this House. The amendments before the House seek to implement the objective of the Labour Party in March 1991 when they brought a Private Members' Bill before the House. The Minister's few words gave me no consolation that there was any real intent to do anything positive about extending the vote to emigrants. This right is being denied to emigrants on the first major election since the Government assumed office. I do not understand why that is so. Obviously that matter has not been given a high priority. Let us hear less about the promises to faraway emigrant societies and associations until we see legislation. It only adds to the cynicism if high sounding phrases and commitments are entered into but not delivered on.

My amendment, as the Minister sought to point out in his short contribution, provides that the Minister for the Environment would have sweeping powers to make regulations. That is true. If it is necessary to amend my amendment to meet the point made by the Minister I am willing to do so. In other words, whatever regulations he makes would have to be approved within the required period by Dáil Éireann. That is standard practice with all regulations. I am willing to accept that type of amendment and would propose it now if the Minister was prepared to accept it. If the Minister was amenable to accepting my amendment with that change included, I would be happy to amend it to any words the Minister might propose.

I appeal to the Minister to bear in mind that the so-called studies have been going on for far too long. So far as I can establish they were completed a long time ago. If, as stated by the attorney general, the advice the Government is getting is that a constitutional amendment is required, why can the Minister not tell us that is the position? Can the Minister tell us if legislation is being prepared to bring forward that referendum? Could that referendum not be held on the same day as the European elections on 9 June 1994? Everybody will have to accept the decision of the Irish people. They are being denied the opportunity to decide the issue because they cannot initiate the legislation; that is a power that lies solely with the Minister.

Mr. Stagg

I thank Deputy Currie and Deputy Hogan for the positive position they put forward and particularly for demonstrating their awareness of the difficulties involved in bringing forward finite proposals on this matter. I should like to inform Deputy McManus that the examinations arising from a commitment in a recent agreement between the Labour Party and the Fianna Fáil Party — the Programme for a Partnership Government — are in progress as to the best method of dealing with the issue and the commitment from both parties that——

Ms McManus

The Minister did not provide for that.

Mr. Stagg

That is much more complicated than the Deputy's amendment appears to recognise. The Programme for a Partnership Government clearly states:

We accept in principle that there should be constitutional change to give voting rights to emigrants and this issue will be further examined.

That examination, which is complex, is at departmental level and may have to be broadened out to the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Attorney General's Office. My information is that these examinations are not complete. Perhaps there were prior examinations during Deputy Molloy's period in office. The examinations we have undertaken are not complete and, therefore, I am not in a position to say exactly when enabling legislation will be brought to this House. I can say, however, that during the period of office of this Government that matter will be concluded in accordance with the agreement of the Government parties.

Deputy McManus made the point that because it was not included in this legislation I was refusing to give votes to emigrants. That is not the case. Due to the ongoing examination we are not in a position to include that right in this legislation. But we have a very definite commitment during the period of office of this Government to bring in legislation providing for votes for emigrants and to have a referendum, if required. That matter is being examined.

I should like to say to Deputy Molloy — I apologise for interrupting him while speaking — as somebody who has held ministerial office for as long and as reguarly as he has, that to come into the House and berate somebody who has been in office for as short a time as I have been for not doing something that he obviously failed to do during this long political career in high office is not acceptable. Had that criticism come from any other Member of the House it would be acceptable. Not alone did Deputy Molloy not do anything about it, but, during his last period in office, he adopted what I can only describe as a hypocritical position when he said he was in favour of this issue but voted against it. Now he says we have not done enough in a nine month period, despite the fact that during the past 25 years or so Deputy Molloy, in high office, did nothing about it.

From the Government's point of view we are not in a position to take amendments to this Bill that would allow votes for emigrants. I want to give a commitment to the House that during the lifetime of this Government the necessary legislation and referendum, if required, will be put in place so that these rights can be extended to emigrants.

Chairman

Is Deputy Hogan pressing amendment No. 3?

Mr. Hogan

Yes. The Minister has stated on more than one occasion that he has no difficulty with the principle of votes for emigrants. Indeed, as previous speakers have outlined, this is firmly on the record of the House. Is the Minister in a position to tell the House if he will accept an amendment on Report Stage which would meet the concerns of Opposition Deputies in respect of this matter or to give a clear indication that progress is being made on this issue? The last thing I want to do is to divide the House on this important matter. As this matter is fundamental to the debate today, we want to see some evidence of progress.

Mr. Stagg

It would be impractical at this point to say that next June we will give votes to emigrants. It would not be possible to compile a register between now and next June for that purpose. The register is now being compiled and is nearing completion. At the rate we are proceeding the register will be completed before we reach Report Stage. It simply would not be practical to do as the Deputy suggests because, as well as the point I made earlier, we are in the middle of framing a legislative policy on the issue of votes for emigrants. The principle has been accepted but we are not in a position at present to put that in the Bill. In practical terms we simply could not prepare a register for emigrants as the up-dating of the register will be finished by next June. A whole raft of legislation would be required also.

Chairman

Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. Hogan

Yes.

Amendment put.

The Select Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 17.

Tá
Boylan, Andrew.	McGinley, Dinny.
Currie, Austin.	McGrath, Paul.
Doyle, Avril.	McManus, Liz
Finucane, Michael	Molloy, Robert.
Hogan, Philip.	Nealon Ted.
	Sargent, Trevor.

Níl
Ahern, Michael.	Hilliard, Colm.
Bree, Declan.	Kennellly, Brendan.
Broughan, Tommy.	Kenny, Seán.
Connolly, Ger.	Martin, Michael.
Ellis, John.	Nolan, M. J.
O'Keeffe, Batt.	Smith, Brendan.
O'Leary, John.	Stagg, Emmet.
Penrose, Willie.	Upton, Pat.
	Walsh,

Amendment declared lost.

Chairman

Amendment No. 4 in the name of Deputy Hogan has already been discussed with amendment No. 2. Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?

Mr. Hogan

No.

Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Ms McManus

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 2, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.—The Electoral Act, 1992 is hereby amended by the deletion of section 9 and the substitition of the following:

‘9.—(1) A person shall be entitled to be registered as a European elector in a constituency if he has reached the age of eighteen years and if he was, on the qualifying date a citizen of Ireland, and—

(i) ordinarily resident in that constituency, or

(ii) residing outside the State but in a member state of the European Communities and is not registered as a European elector in any such state.

(2) The Minister for the Environment shall make regulations providing for—

(i) the inclusion in the register of European electors resident outside of the State, and

(ii) a scheme of voting for European electors resident outside of the State.'.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Molloy

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 2, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.— The Minister for the Environment shall make regulations extending the right to vote in European Parliament Elections to Irish citizens residing outside the State who have reached the age of eighteen years.".

Amendment put.

The Select Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 19.

Tá
Boylan, Andrew.	Keogh, Helen.
Currie, Austin.	McGinley, Dinny.
Doyle, Avril.	McGrath, Paul.
Finucane, Michael.	McManus, Liz.
Hogan, Philip.	Molloy, Robert.
	Nealon, Ted.

Níl
Ahern, Michael.	Martin, Michael.
Bree, Declan.	Nolan, M. J.
Connolly, Ger.	Ó Cuív, Éamon.
Costello, Joe.	O'Keeffe, Batt.
Ellis, John.	O'Leary, John.
Foley, Denis.	Penrose, Willie.
Hilliard, Colm.	Smith, Brendan.
Kenneally, Brendan.	Stagg, Emmet.
Kenny, Sean.	Upton, Pat.
	Walsh, Eamon.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 3 agreed to.

Chairman

As it is now after 4 p.m. it is proposed to adjourn until 11.30 a.m. on Tuesday next, 16 November 1993. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Select Committee adjourned at 4.5 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 16 November 1993.