Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Jun 1979

Vol. 92 No. 7

European Assembly (Irish Representatives) Bill, 1979: Second Stage.

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

The main purpose of the Bill is to provide the necessary legislative authority for the appropriate payments to Irish representatives elected to the European Assembly.

Section 2 provides that Irish representatives will receive, in respect of their duties in the Assembly, the equivalent of the allowance payable from time to time to a Dáil Deputy. This is in accordance with the decision of the European Council that Assembly representatives should be paid the same remuneration as the members of the Parliament of the country they represent. It was left to each member state to decide, in relation to members holding a dual mandate in the national parliament and the Assembly, whether they should retain both salaries. It has been decided that Irish representatives in the Assembly, who are also members of the Oireachtas, will receive their appropriate Oireachtas alallowance in addition to their Assembly allowance. It is not, however, necessary to provide specifically for this in the legislation. It is not the intention that an office-holder who becomes an Assembly representative would continue to hold office. In line with this, the Minister of State who was recently elected to the European Assembly has resigned his office. The question of payment of salary as an office-holder in addition to allowances as member of the Assembly and the Oireachtas does not therefore arise. Payment of the Assembly allowance will continue from the beginning of the term of office, that is, in the case of an elected representative, from the date on which the Assembly first meets after the election—17 July 1979 in the case of the first elected Assembly.

Members of the European Parliament have in the past received allowances in respect of travel, subsistence and secretarial expenses, and it is understood that these payments will continue to be determined by the Assembly and met from the Assembly budget. It is not envisaged, accordingly, that any expenses would fall to be met from voted moneys. It is considered desirable, however, to have a provision in the legislation enabling payment of expenses to be made from voted moneys if the necessity should arise in the future, for example, if these expenses should cease to be borne on Assembly funds. Section 3 enables this to be done by way of Order.

Section 4 provides for the making of a contributory scheme for the grant of pensions to, or in respect of, the Irish representatives in the Assembly. The provisions will be set out in the scheme itself, which will be generally on the lines of that already applicable to members of the Oireachtas. Such a scheme will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in accordance with section 6 of the Bill.

The Bill also provides, in section 5, for the avoidance of conflict of interest arising through representatives of the European Assembly having direct involvement in the affairs of State-sponsored bodies. Already, the individual Acts governing most of these bodies contain provisions designed to ensure that a person shall not at the same time be a Member of the Oireachtas and a member of the board or staff of a State-sponsored body. The application of similar limitations to representatives in the European Assembly is appropriate, and the present Bill affords a suitable opportunity to do so on a general basis. The Schedule to section 5 lists the bodies to which the limitations will apply, and further bodies may be added as and when appropriate.

I commend the Bill to the House.

From the Minister's statement it is quite clear that this Bill should not be before this House at all because he says, and I quote:

Members of the European Parliament have, in the past, received allowances in respect of travel, subsistence and secretarial expenses, and it is understood that these payments will continue to be determined by the Assembly and met from the Assembly budget.

Why will the Assembly not accept full responsibility for a payment of the salaries as well as other allowances? It would have been the natural thing to do, the right thing to do. While we discuss this Bill, probably the eight other countries comprising the EEC are doing the same thing, have done, or possibly will do it.

I am sure the Minister fully realises that this was a decision taken late at night, a rather foolish decision. It was taken by the head of the British Labour Party Government at that time. I do not understand the reason. Perhaps the Minister might enlighten us. That Government have since left office. I am quite satisfied that the motive behind it was political, and it was accepted. It is a waste of time and money discussing this Bill at all.

Now we are confronted with a rather peculiar situation, that we have 410 members of the European Parliament. We will have at least nine of them with different salaries. Is it not natural that people in the high-up bracket will look down on people in the lower bracket? I have with me the various salaries—which I shall quote—being paid by various countries to their Members of Parliament. Even in this country, having elected 15 members to the European Parliament, it means that 12 of them will have an income between their Dáil salary and European salary of £13,822 per annum. It means, additionally, that one of them will have an income of £10,969 and two of them will have an income of £6,911. I cannot see how any Government or Minister can justify that. It is foolish and a waste of time.

We might take a look at salaries being paid in other member countries—my figures are not up-to-date; they are those for 7 March, 1978, and may not compare with those I have given already—in the United Kingdom, £6,270 per annum—that is net salary without any subsistence or overnight allowance; Belgium, £21,500; Denmark, £11,750; Germany, £22,700; France, £21,000; Italy, £21,000; Luxembourg, £9,000; Netherlands, £9,530 and the Republic of Ireland, £6,273. Those are the salaries of the different members of Parliament in these countries. If, for example, in France a member of their Parliament was elected to the European Parliament and was in receipt of his salary from his own Parliament, he would have an income of £42,000 as against the highest paid representative we have in Europe who is in receipt of £13,800. It is not sensible. I am sure the Minister fully realises this because he is a very sensible person.

I have no doubt that within a very short time this matter will be taken to the European Court with a decision being taken giving each member of the European Parliament the same salary. If we have three different rates of salary for 15 representatives I am sure the same will apply in other countries. Indeed we could end up with 30 or 40 different rates of salary, even 50. I do not think a Parliament can work or will work that way.

European salaries should have been paid and fixed by the European Assembly, as are the travelling, subsistence and overnight allowances which some people maintain are substantial; I do not know. I believe these salaries will be fixed ultimately by the European Court and that will be the end of it. I have often asked myself what salary a European candidate should receive. There is no way one could offer a European candidate the same salary as a Dáil Deputy when one thinks of the amount of travelling he does. For example, take some people living in the far west. I can think of nobody better at present than my neighbour, Senator McCartin, or Mr. Seán Flanagan, who have to fly out of Dublin, probably returning late that night. They must endeavour to keep two homes and keep in touch with their families. I do not know what kind of salary one would need to offer them. Certainly there is no point in offering them the same salary as a Dáil Deputy. Indeed, as we all look into the future, it appears to me that if the European elected representative is doing his job properly he should not be a member of either House of the Oireachtas. Certainly this Bill is ridiculous, it should never have come to this House; rather the salaries should have been fixed by the European Assembly.

I should like to make one or two comments about this Bill. Certainly I agree with Senator Reynolds that it borders on the ridiculous. I regret I was not present for the Minister of State's Second Reading speech. Perhaps he has already answered some of the points I should like to raise.

This year we have had here a number of Government decisions which set many people thinking. After a five or six month marathon European election campaign it is ridiculous to find the Government introducing a Bill like this, proposing to set the rate of remuneration of the Irish directly-elected members of the European Parliament on a scale similar to that presently enjoyed by Members of the Dáil and which anyone will accept is far too low taking account of present day prices, relativities, or whatever yardstick one wishes to use.

We are on the periphery of Europe. In travelling to the meeting place very seldom is an Irish representative able to make a direct connection by plane. He must fly over London, Amsterdam or Brussels and very often this warrants travelling the night before, for which the member cannot claim expenses. What I am amazed about is that the Government, in their wisdom, decided that they have not got the authority to allow members to continue to enjoy the facilities the House provided by way of booking travel and hotel accommodation that proved so useful. Indeed, I should like to compliment Martin McMahon and David Reynolds in the inter-parliamentary section for the wonderful facilities that they have——

The Senator will appreciate that members of the staff should not be mentioned in the House.

I bow to your ruling. I had not intended doing so but I just wanted to put on record the tremendous contribution that the staff members of the House have made to the Parliament of the Community over the past six years. Their task, which necessitated working over and above the normal hours that the civil service work, warrants recognition. While, on one hand, the Government say they have no power to allow those officers of the House to continue to book tickets, reserve hotel accommodation or indeed even to allow the Joint Committee to pass on documentation or information to members, at the same time they can set a salary for these members which will be a fifth of the salary which will be provided by the members from Berlin and a fourth of the salary provided for members from Sicily, which is one of the poorest areas in the Community after the Irish midlands. If we are to believe the press the Irish members will have almost certainly a third less than their counterparts representing Northern Ireland. Our people going out have a difficult job, they are in a new environment. At least their salary should be adequate. Certainly under the terms of this Bill it will not be.

May I take it from my reading of section 2 that members of the European Parliament who are not Members of the Dáil or Seanad will receive only £6,700 per annum? Do I take it that Senator McCartin, who has been elected in the western constituency, will receive in addition to his Seanad salary, a sum equal to his Seanad salary or will it be a sum equal to a Dáil salary? It is not spelled out in section 2. Do I take it that the remuneration of Mr. Maher and Mr. Flanagan, both elected to Europe and who are not Members of either House of the Oireachtas, will be solely £6,700 per annum? My recollection is that this decision was arrived at after a dinner discussion at the second last Council meeting when the wine had been flowing fairly freely. It is ludicrous that any Council, or any organisation, should arrive at a decision whereby, for instance, representatives from this country would be paid three different rates of salary. It is nonsensical to say the least.

New members will have to face many difficulties from the point of view of just getting to the venues of the meetings, and I would have expected the Government to rush in to ensure that our members would be as fully equipped as possible by a system of briefings, or by facilitating their travelling allowances. I was shocked today to find that even the briefings that the nominated parliament enjoyed are being discontinued. What is this country coming to? Surely there is a role for the members of the European Parliament to play on our behalf? Surely it is in the interests of the country that these people should be given the very best facilities that we can possibly give. It will not be any skin off the Government's nose if they just brief the members on the situation as it is here in relation to any item that may hit the agenda whether it relates to regionalisation of transport, agriculture, or social affairs. This is a shocking state of affairs if we are going to start into a new era, where, at last, we have this tremendous step forward and a greater democratisation of the European Community, by putting everything possible in the way of facilitating and equipping our 15 members to the European Parliament.

Paragraph 5 (2) provides that members will be disqualified from holding certain offices on being nominated to contest the election. This is a little unfortunate, as it will deter people from allowing their names to go forward. That should be amended. People should be encouraged to allow their names to go forward and to contest these elections. People should not be penalised for so doing. That kind of a provision deters people from being part of the electoral system. It is not in the interests of democracy. I hope that the Minister will see his way to changing that disqualification to read "elected to or nominated directly" to succeed someone in the European Parliament.

The Government have taken upon themselves the onus of providing pensions as well as salaries for the members of the Parliament. From my reading of the Statues of the European Parliament I feel that the Parliament has absolute power over their own budgetary affairs. These matters ought to be left to the institution.

There is no great sense of unity and there is no indication that the Community are drawing closer. There is no sign of any great European unity in a range of salary scales and pensions for members coming from different provinces. This is quite shocking. I hope I have misread section 2 and that there is just one salary for each member representing this country. Has the Minister of State taken into account the fact that the salary scales in the other part of this country have been considerably increased or that there is a proposal to increase them this summer? This will mean that if this Bill goes through unamended the three members elected from Northern Ireland will enjoy a salary which is approximately 50 per cent greater than what is proposed for the better paid of the Irish representatives, and more than 100 per cent greater than what is proposed for the lesser paid of the Irish members.

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.

I agree with those who say it was wrong of the Government to agree to a system of remuneration for the members of the European Parliament which could result and is resulting in members of the same Parliament being paid different salaries. That was a mistake, and I agree with Senator Robinson about that. Those who spoke before me have made the case very well and I do not intend to detain the House very long. Because we have only 15 people in the Parliament it is of the utmost importance that these representatives should have a highly efficient back-up service so as to be able to get our point of view across.

I should like also to draw attention to the size of the constituencies that these members represent. Take our constituency of three Ulster and five Connacht counties and take into account that the three members representing us will in the course of their duties travel widely over that huge constituency to ascertain the views of people on different problems. I ask how could we expect that to be done on a meagre salary?

In general the best thing to do is to ensure that these people are adequately remunerated, that the back-up service is highly efficient, and it should go without saying that it is ridiculous to visualise a parliament of 410 members all doing the same work at different rates of pay. It is so ridiculous that it should never have been mooted. I suggest that the Government immediately set about having that ridiculous situation rectified.

I wish to thank the Senators for their contributions. While many of them made similar points I will endeavour to go through the points that were raised. Senator Reynolds and Senator Robinson were critical of the legislation and of the necessity for it. That brings me to the second point that was raised by some of the speakers—the decision that was taken at Bremen. While press speculation suggested at the time that there was British pressure to have such a decision taken the facts are that the nine Heads of State agreed at that Council meeting in Bremen that they themselves in their own countries would decide on remuneration for members of the European Parliament. Regardless of who initiated it or what pressures were there, the fact is that the nine Heads of State agreed to it. Last week the nine Heads of State met again and there was no change in that decision notwithstanding the fact that the British Government, which is the one that was mentioned, has changed since and that though there are different people there now, there has not been any question of changing the decision taken last December at the Heads of State Council in Bremen.

What we are doing is similar to what is being done in the other nine countries. We must deal with the situation that we find ourselves in at present. In the absence of any decision that might subsequently be taken in the future by the Parliament or by the Council or both, the position is that unless this legislation is passed not only here but in other countries there will be no provision for payment of any allowance or salary whatsoever to the members of the European Parliament.

Much discussion has taken place on the question of different salaries in different countries. I think all of us will appreciate that one of the reasons for making this decision by the Heads of State at Bremen was that in their opinion, the salaries should reflect the different standards of living that obtain in each of the nine countries. This is one of the main reasons for the different level of salary.

We are not accepting a two-tier Europe, then.

Not necessarily. We would hope the standard of living would be the same all over and at the highest level but that is not the situation as everybody is well aware. The salaries are reflecting the standards of living in each of the nine countries. The question was raised about the salaries for European members. It is the same for all the Irish representatives in the European Parliament. The figure at present is £6,911. They are all entitled to that salary regardless of what other incomes they might have as Members of this House, Members of the Dáil or in any other capacity in the private sector. Senator McDonald raised the question of the necessity for the legislation. Senator McDonald, Senator Robinson and Senator O'Brien raised also the question of the facilities provided by the Dáil staff in relation to the nominated members from the Houses of the Oireachtas for the last number of years. They were our nominees and therefore the Houses of the Oireachtas provided whatever facilities they could. Now the situation is that they are directly-elected members of the European Parliament and it is the duty and the obligation of the European Assembly to provide the necessary facilities, let they be here nationally or in Europe itself.

Why not leave the salaries to them too?

The new situation is that there are now 15 representatives and such facilities as back-up service, briefing and so on are the responsibility of the European Parliament. I do not think we would see this House being used in the way of providing facilities other than for Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas but if there is to be a change it would be a matter for the various agencies within the Houses of the Oireachtas to decide on the situation then.

Senator McDonald made the point that section 2 is not clear. He did admit that he was not in for my speech at the outset of the debate. I said then that it is not necessary to provide specifically in the legislation for the allowances and salary in respect of either a Deputy or a Senator. We are dealing here solely with the provision of an allowance or salary for members of the European Parliament. The other question has already been dealt with in other legislation. It was not therefore found necessary to mention the question of the dual salary or to have it included in this legislation.

On the question of section 5vis-à-vis the disqualification—a point raised by Senator MacDonald—I welcome the contribution in that regard made by Senator Robinson. I agree fully with what she has said. For this time, the date of election is the date of disqualification. In future it will be the date of nomination. It was not possible this time because the legislation was not ready. As Senators are aware, nominations closed even before the legislation was circulated to Deputies and Senators. What is being done in the legislation is similar to what applies to Deputies and Senators. This time it had to be from the date of election but in future it will be similar to the situation vis-à-vis Deputies and Senators on State Boards, from the date of nomination.

Senator Robinson asked about the legislation in the other countries. We do not have the full and up-to-date position, but the question of temporary legislation was mentioned. I can give Senators the information I have. In Italy no decision has been taken yet but the information I have is that they were discussing it on 20 June. We do not have the information for Belgium. In Germany the law has been passed. I do not have the information about it being temporary legislation or otherwise, but that was mentioned in the Dáil yesterday. I do not know whether that is true. In Denmark the Bill is under discussion. In France it is on its way to the Senate. In Britain the Second Stage is being concluded. For Luxembourg we do not have the up-to-date information and in Holland the regulations are being presented to parliament soon. We know what is the situation in Ireland.

Senator Robinson talked about the possibility of an amendment on Committee Stage but I would suggest that it is not necessary to have temporary type legislation or a date for amending or repealing the legislation. If the situation as we know it changes in the future, as Senators are well aware, this legislation or any other legislation can be amended or repealed if it is so warranted. I would respectfully suggest that that is the position and has been the position in relation to much of the legislation passed in the various parliaments in Europe.

We are satisfied from the legal advice we have got from the Attorney General and the parliamentary draftsmen that the legislation is legally in order, and I have no reason to doubt it.

Senator Robinson asked me to explain the position regarding section 3. Members of the European Parliament have, in the past, received allowances in respect of travel, subsistence and secretarial expenses. It is understood that these payments will continue to be determined by the Assembly and met from the Assembly budget. It is not envisaged, accordingly, that any expense would fall to be met from voted moneys. It is considered desirable, however, to have a provision in the legislation enabling payment of expenses to be made from voted moneys if the necessity should arise in the future, for example, if the expenses should cease to be borne out of Assembly funds. Section 3 is an enabling section to allow us do this if the occasion arises. It is a practicable arrangement that is necessary in this legislation.

Is it possible that it could provide for the topping up of expenses, for instance, for internal travel in Ireland?

It is an enabling section to do anything in relation to travel, subsistence and so on.

Section 4 deals with the pension scheme. This is also an enabling section which enables us to set up a pension scheme similar to what exists for Deputies and Senators at present, that is, a contributory pension scheme. Senator Robinson, and rightly so, raised questions relating to the existing scheme. This is an enabling section to allow for the setting up of a scheme but any revision of the existing scheme will be incorporated in the new scheme for members of the European Parliament.

I do not think there is any other point which was raised that I did not reply to. We can only deal with the situation that we find ourselves in. It was mentioned here about sending second-class citizens to Europe. I do not think any of the members who were elected are second-class citizens. They have all come through a rough ordeal.

The pay, and not the citizens, is second class.

It can be said that it would be but as I explained earlier the different salaries are to reflect the different standards of living in the various countries. For the last six years we have had representatives there who had to exist—if that is the word—out of the allowances from the European Assembly which are very generous. I am sure there are some Senators here who would be aware of this. Now they will have a salary in addition to this allowance. I recommend this Bill to the House.

Does the Minister envisage any provision for travelling expenses for the members to various centres in their constituencies on parliamentary work?

That will be a matter for the members themselves in their Assembly. At the moment they have a scheme there and I assume they will have an improved one for the directly-elected members. I understand that it does not at present include travel for internal constituency work.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to take the next Stage?

I indicated that I would like to put down a number of amendments. I would ask that the next Stage be put back until next week.

One amendment?

I want to consider another one relating to research facilities.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 4 July 1979.
Business suspended at 5.45 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.
Top
Share