There is a remarkable silence from the Government side of the House on the question of the allowances for members of the European Parliament. I do not know whether they are so chastened by the recent election that they have no view to express on this question.
Like Senator Reynolds and Senator McDonald, I am extremely critical of the approach in this Bill and of the terms of the Bill. It is regrettable that the decision to have the allowances and other pay and conditions of members of the European Parliament decided at the national level was taken by the Council of Ministers at the Bremen meeting in December 1978. As I understand it—I hope the Minister of State will comment on this—there was great political pressure from Britain. Surely the Irish Government should not have fallen into the trap of undermining the pay and conditions of the 15 Irish members directly elected to the European Parliament. It was clear from the attitude of the European Parliament and from the power of the Parliament over their own budgetary affairs, that the intention in moving to direct elections was to have the pay and conditions of members directly elected to that Parliament governed by the European Parliament.
Prior to that decision in Bremen there was a very high level deputation to the European Council putting forward the view of the delegates to the European Parliament that the salary or allowance of members of the European Parliament would be determined at the European level and would be pegged to a percentage of the salary of members of the European Commission and therefore would be increased to take account of rises in the cost of living and so on and that it would be the same rate for all the nationalities represented in the European Parliament. What we are doing by having it decided in this unequal way at national level for the different countries of the European Community is undervaluing democratic representation, under-paying the members of the European Parliament for the job we are asking them to do, and this is very serious. We are witnessing a further diminution of democratic representation and democratic control at the European Community level. The pressure seems to have come from Britain, because Britain had and continues to have problems in her membership of the European Community, and political problems in reconciling herself to being one of a Community of Nine and not a British empire which wants totally to control her own affairs and to call the tune in Europe. Britain seems to have succeeded in calling the tune in so far as the terms and conditions of the members of the European Parliament are concerned.
There was a very weak decision by the Council of Ministers at that Bremen meeting on four different levels. First, there was a decision that the allowances and conditions of members of the European Parliament would be decided at the national level for the nine member states; secondly, that pay would be regulated at the national level; thirdly, that the taxation provisions would be determined at the national level; and fourthly, that pensions would be decided at the national level. They were weak decisions; they are not a strong base for the European Parliament and they were contrary to the views and wishes of the existing members of the European Parliament. As I understand it, a number of countries have introduced temporary legislation in this matter. Perhaps the Minister of State in his reply would give us an account of the state of the legislation in the other states and would indicate to this House the member states which have introduced temporary legislation. I propose to table an amendment for Committee Stage which would suggest that this legislation should be temporary in its nature and should have a date for its termination so that we would have good reason to try to influence the attitude of other member states and also good reason to listen to the views of the newly elected members of the European Parliament.
After the election and all the publicity given to it our 15 directly elected members of the European Parliament are in danger of becoming forgotten people. This may be part of a Gaullist idea that the European Parliament should not be given any significance in the European Community. During the election campaign a very strong view was expressed by the Fianna Fáil Party that they did not want to see more power and influence given to the European Parliament. One way of ensuring that there is no more power and influence at European Parliament level is to under-pay and under-equip the members of the European Parliament.
I would regret very much if that Fianna Fáil attitude during the election were carried over now in considering the allowances, pay, conditions and back-up services to members of the European Parliament. It would be a highly regrettable step which would diminish the influence of a directly elected parliament and would diminish the aspiration of the peoples of Europe to have a parliament which would represent them and which would give them a stronger accountability for decisions being taken in the Council of Ministers. The members should be equipped and in a position to fulfil one of the most difficult jobs that elected representatives can possibly have, the job of representing a very large segment of their own population in a European Parliament where conflicting views have to be reconciled and where they have not only to influence their own political group and work in the committees, but also make a contribution in Ireland so that their constituents can understand what they are trying to do, can understand the enormous influence that the European Community have on our daily lives; and can understand the enormous number of very important decisions that are now taken in Brussels, not by the European Parliament but by the Council of Ministers under a very strong influence from the Committee of Permanent Representatives, and the representatives of the national bureaucracies.
The development of the European Community from the beginning has not been a healthy democratic development. Decision making was not carried out in an accountable and responsible way, responsive to the democratic structures. Having had the experience of a direct election of members of the European Parliament it would be sad to dilute that and dimish it by under-paying and under-equipping the members of the European Parliament for the job they have to do. That is my first major criticism of this legislation. I propose to table an amendment for Committee Stage to provide that this be a temporary measure pending the realisation of the role of members of the European Parliament and the need to have their allowances and conditions standardised, equal for all members, regardless of their nationality and determined at the European level.
Did the Government seek any legal advice on the compatibility of this legislation with the powers of the European Parliament and their relationship with their own budget? Was any legal advice sought as to whether or not it was compatible with the Treaty of Rome and with the status and powers of the European Parliament to have the salaries determined at a national level and to have them, therefore, unequal in relation to the different member states? If this advice was not sought by the Irish Government from the Attorney General's Office, is the Minister aware of whether this advice was sought at the European level, perhaps of the legal service of the Commission or of the legal service of the Council of Ministers, and if so is the Minister able to give us the benefit of any such legal advice? For reasons outlined by both Senator Reynolds and Senator McDonald it seems that there are very strong constitutional objections to the result achieved by leaving it to the member states to determine the pay and conditions of directly elected members of a parliament. In Ireland's case two of our members are not Members of the Oireachtas at all, but were directly elected by the people to a Parliament which is having no direct say in relation to the allowance to be paid to those members despite the budgetary structure of the European Communities and the hitherto jurisdiction of the European Parliament over the allowances of the members of the Parliament.
My understanding of section 2 is that the allowance which will be paid to the Irish members of the European Parliament, is the equivalent of the existing Dáil salary, whether or not they are Members of the Dáil or Members of the Seanad. Between the 15 they would have an equal but a humiliatingly low salary as members of the European Parliament in comparison to what their German, Dutch, Danish, French, Italian and other counterparts would have. I have a list of the existing salaries for members of the different national parliaments, but Senator Reynolds already made reference to this, and I will not delay the House by repeating the figures.
It is a great pity that instead of insisting as a member state of the European Community that our 15 representatives be paid a salary commensurate with their responsibility and with the job they have to do, which would be equal to that paid to the German, French, Italian and Dutch counterparts, we allowed the British difficulties in psychologically coming to terms with the membership of the European Community, to undermine these important values and standards, resulting in the situation in which we have second class members of the European Parliament paid a second class rate but expected to do a first class job on behalf of the people who elected them.
What is the precise meaning and scope of section 3 of the Bill? This section provides that the Minister may, if he thinks fit, by order, provide for the payment of allowances for expenses to representatives in the Assembly, who have been elected or appointed thereto in the manner described in section 2 (1) of this Act. The question of the per diem allowance for attendance, and the subsistence allowance, I understood, was to be a matter for the European Parliament. As I understand it at the moment, the per diem subsistence allowance is approximately £62 per day at the European Parliament and the new European Parliament may review this and may decide whether or not to increase it. I do not understand the significance of having a section here relating to the allowance and I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on that in his reply. This was not part of the Bremen decision between the Government and the Council of Ministers which only related to pay, taxation and pensions.
I would refer also to the provision in relation to the pension scheme. Section 4 provides that the Minister may make a contributory scheme for the granting of pensions to or in respect of persons who have been elected or appointed to the Assembly in the manner prescribed. This scheme is to be similar to the existing scheme for Members of the Oireachtas. Having been involved in a procedure before the Labour Court, which resulted in a determination that that scheme was discriminatory on the basis of sex, and awaiting a revision of this scheme for Members of the Oireachtas so that it does not discriminate against married women and so that it makes provision for the benefits of the scheme to carry over to widowers as well as to widows of Members, I would like to have clarification from the Minister and an assurance that the scheme for members of the European Parliament will not continue this discrimination as so found by the Labour Court. Deputy Eileen Desmond is a widow and our other female representative in the new European Parliament is not married but she may well have intentions in the future in that regard. On her behalf and on behalf of any future married women elected to the European Parliament I hope that the Government will move forward and will not continue an existing discrimination which I hope will be remedied as soon as possible when this scheme is reviewed and the necessary amendment is made to remove the existing discrimination on the basis of sex.
The other provision of the Bill relates to the question of disqualifications of Irish representatives from membership of or employment by certain bodies, and these bodies are listed. They are the standard bodies for which a person is disqualified if he becomes a Member of the Oireachtas. This is a measure which it is appropriate to have in legislation of this sort. There are strong reasons why it is desirable to have this provision that a person who is elected would be automatically disqualified from membership of that kind of body.
I would refer to the whole question of the relationship between the directly elected members of the European Parliament and the Oireachtas. This was the subject of discussion this afternoon in the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Community. Senator McDonald was also present at the Committee discussions. It was felt by members of the Joint Committee that there had been a very precipitate cut-off of the existing facilities which were extended to the former delegates of the European Parliament. These delegates of the European Parliament had the valuable assistance of the staff of the Oireachtas in making bookings and travel arrangements, and as Senator McDonald said, there are very complex travel arrangements. It as Senator McDonald said, there are very complex travel arrangements. It can often be very difficult to get from a part of Ireland to either Luxembourg or Strasbourg and it may be necessary to make arrangements there for a different route home if it is necessary to come home earlier or later, depending on the business. It is a little precipitous that this facility should be withdrawn without any alternative scheme.
It is right that any provision for this kind of support and arrangements for the newly elected members of the European Parliament should ultimately be provided out of the resources and the staffing of the European Parliament and the European Parliament office here in Dublin, but until such an arrangement is made there is a very strong need not only to continue the existing facility but to ensure that members of the newly elected European Parliament are facilitated in every way in the interests of this country, with every help and support in the sometimes very arduous, difficult and time consuming travel arrangement they have to make. I hope that the recommendation of the Joint Committee, that the facility be continued until replaced by some alternative system, will be accepted and that the arrangement will continue. It will also be necessary to have very substantial briefings of members and research facilities for members of the European Parliament. Will the Minister of State make any comment on whether or not the Government have considered the question of providing separate research facilities for members of the European Parliament? It may be that the European Parliament will ultimately make allocations for research, but this certainly is not there at the moment. Any research carried out by the central staff in Luxembourg—and valuable research is carried out by the staff there—would be valuable as far as the European dimension is concerned, in collating material from different countries and in giving members up-to-date material on European problems, but it is not possible from Luxembourg to carry out the kind of detailed research and back-up at the Irish level, at the level of the four regional constituencies. It is important to ensure that there are independent research and back-up facilities for members of the European Parliament in each of the regional constituencies, so that they can come to terms with the size and shape of their constituency, and can have this assistance, briefing and indepth research which will be necessary if they are to make substantial representations on behalf of these regional constituencies, not only in the European Parliament but in their political groupings. Senator McDonald would perhaps bear witness to this more than I can.
It was quite frightening at times to see the level of briefing available to former delegates of the European Parliament from other countries. They came in grasping in-depth files which contained broken down figures and which put the national position in a very prominent way. This kind of research and documentation will be all the more necessary to the new members of the European Parliament because they have a definite constituency in which to work, and a very grave responsibility to represent the people of their areas in the European Parliament. They also have a responsibility to lobby in the general European decision making process, and to lobby the Commission and Council in Brussels. It is important that the Government take this responsibility very seriously and ensure that this kind of facility is available.
I would hope that the provision in section 3 about the possibility of the payment of allowances might be extended. Perhaps this could be done by an amendment if it is not already within the scope of the Bill, so that there might be the establishment of a research facility in each of the regional constituencies for the benefit of the members of the European Parliament who represent those constituencies. They should have a resource to draw upon, from Ireland, a resource specifically provided here in recognition of the need for very well equipped and well briefed members of the European Parliament to represent our interests at the European level.
My approach to this Bill is a very critical one. It was a mistake on the part of the Irish Government to bow to pressure from Britain for British electoral reasons. We should have stood firm for the need for members of the European Parliament to be paid a salary commensurate with the responsibility and work which they would do determined at the European level. That would be in the interests of democracy. It would ensure that we value our elected representatives and that we equip them to carry out the very responsible task for which the people elected them. On that very critical note and with the intention of submitting amendments I await the Minister's reply to the debate.