Before we turn to Committee Stage of this Bill, I should indicate to the House that amendments Nos. 1 and 5 in the name of Senator McDonald and amendment No. 6 in the name of Senator Robinson are out of order on the ground that they involve a potential charge on public revenue.
European Assembly (Irish Representatives) Bill, 1979: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
Amendments Nos 2 and 3 are related and amendment No. 7 is cognate with amendment No. 3. Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 7 to be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, after line 18, to add to the section the following new subsection:
"(5) This section shall cease to have effect from such date, if any, as the Assembly shall commence payments to representatives of the Assembly in respect of their membership of the Assembly."
This amendment is self-explanatory. This miserable situation in which we find ourselves arises because of a deal that was done at the insistence of the British Prime Minister of the day at a European summit. It is generally hoped that the European Assembly, or Parliament, in their wisdom, whenever they get round to the matter, will determine the payment of their own members as should have been the case in the first place. The object of amendment No. 3 is to put a clear time limit on the operation of the relevant part of the Bill as an aid to both the Irish Government and the Irish members of the Assembly to say to all the relevant agencies, but most importantly the European Assembly, "Will you please get on with the matter of determining the remuneration of your own members?" Subsection (5) relates to that point. Subsection (6) in amendment No. 3 is a mechanism whereby the actual guillotine date, of 1 July 1981, can, by ministerial order, be a little extended. This formula is used in other circumstances and works quite satisfactorily.
In this amendment we want to pressure the decision-making agencies to determine the question of the remuneration of Parliament members by the Parliament itself, quickly. We wish to aid that pressure being kept up. We do not wish to do that — and this is the point of subsection (6) — in such a way as would create embarrassment or difficulty. Subsection (6), to some extent, mitigates the rigorousness of the 1 July 1981 time-limit which is in the new suggested subsection (5).
Amendment No. 7 of section 6 is consequent on amendment No. 3. It simply means that the power of the Minister in making orders which occur in another part of the Bill, would also extend to the new subsection (6) of section 3. Amendment No. 7 is simply consequential on the new subsection (6) in amendment No. 3.
This legislation deals with the situation we find ourselves in, and we can only deal in such situations. As regards amendments Nos. 2 and 3, which are basically questions of time limit on the provisions in section 2, I see no reason at all to change the provision as outlined in the Bill because it is difficult to legislate for what, at the moment, is a hypothetical situation. If such a situation develops, Senators will be well aware that it is quite easy to amend the Act, much easier than what is provided in the second part of Senator Robinson's amendment which is extending it by ministerial order which is a cumbersome exercise which would not be the best, if that is the way it was intended. As Senators are aware, the orders for such purposes have to be laid before the Oireachtas, for 21 sitting days of the Dáil and so on. The system of annual orders would only give rise to a good deal of extra work without any real obvious benefits. Not being in a position to accept amendments Nos 2 and 3, amendment No. 7 does not arise.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, after line 18, to add to the section the following new subsections:
"(5) This section shall remain in force only until 1st July 1981 unless it is continued in force by an order under subsection (6) of this section.
(6) The Minister may by order at any time when this section is in force provide that this section shall continue in force for a period not exceeding twelve months from the commencement of the order."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
"3.— The Minister shall arrange for access to such research facilities as he considers necessary for representatives in the Assembly who have been elected or appointed thereto in the manner described in section 2 (1) of this Act."
Until the time of the direct elections the facilities of the Oireachtas were available to Members who had been in the European Parliament. Indeed, this was an experience I had myself. From the date of our accession on 1 January 1973 these members were nominated by the Oireachtas and were not directly elected. From the time of the direct elections it appeared that these facilities were not available to representatives in the Assembly who were elected. I do not want to digress about the general quality of service of all kinds available to Members of the Oireachtas, but I want to confine the matter strictly to the elected representatives. They face a new situation to the extent that their constituency is not the whole country, as it was for the nominated representatives, which was my own experience. They have very large constituencies, much larger than the existing Dáil constituencies and very difficult to work. In those circumstances, and in the added circumstance that they will receive the worst salaries of any European parliamentarians and have the greatest distances to travel both in sparsely populated areas domestically and in the large distances between Ireland and the places where the parliament sits, either in Strasbourg or Luxembourg, they will be supplementing the allowances which they obtain from the parliament on a flat rate basis out of a salary which is already the lowest salary of any European parliamentarian. I will not go into things that were said from all sides on Second Stage, but this is a most unsatisfactory situation.
I recognise that we cannot have a circumstance in which we vote a charge, but we are asking for access by all elected members to as much back-up as can be possibly given to them. This is the more urgent in the case of one particular person — I refer to a member of the European Parliament, Mr. T.J. Maher, who is not a Member of either House of the Oireachtas. Pending a real salary being paid to these people, and pending the ending of this disgusting anomaly where there are three different rates within the Republic of Ireland, four different rates within the island of Ireland and where, apparently, Irish parliamentarians, members of the European Parliament, are considered to be the least valuable of European parliamentarians, we would like to see the Minister at his discretion arranging for access to the research facilities he considers necessary for the newly elected representatives to the Assembly.
I might point out to the Minister that there is a matter of discretion in the phrase "as he considers necessary". Since these research facilities currently exist and are there, there is not the matter of a new charge. The object of this amendment is to try in what is hopefully a short transition period, to ensure that Irish members of the European Parliament can function at the best and highest possible level. Since the salary matter has been resolved in such a rotten and unsatisfactory way, hopefully a temporary way, we feel that all possible aid from the Irish State should be given as an indication that we consider it a bad solution, that these people, as indeed Members of the Oireachtas, ought to be better sustained than they currently are in trying to carry out their work.
In his reply could the Minister clarify what the current situation is, whether members of the European Parliament can avail of the ordinary facilities of the parliamentary office here, which has been the practice over the past six years?
I want to speak in favour of this amendment. This is only an attempt to strengthen the hand of the Irish members serving the European Parliament on behalf of this country. We went through a very intense European election campaign, even though the electorate did not seem to feel very intense about it. We have only 15 people there in a very large parliament of 410 members, and they will need extra help. Without putting any charges on the Exchequer, we should examine every possible method to strengthen the Irish voice in Europe. As Senator Keating said, the Irish representatives have ended up with an absolutely rotten salary compared with salaries being paid in the stronger countries in Europe. It seems that the stronger nations will be getting stronger and the weaker nations getting weaker instead of the weaker nations catching up on the stronger ones. The expression "positive discrimination" should be used to help our members in Europe. I would just like to support the amendment very strongly.
The Dáil offices used to provide various secretarial services for the nominated members, including the booking of flights, arranging of connections, and so on, and the necessary staff time was made available to deal with these matters. These services were given because the people concerned were basically Oireachtas delegates to the parliament. Now the position is different. The present 15 are not designated by the Houses of the Oireachtas but are directly elected representatives to the European Parliament. In these circumstances, the services mentioned are being withdrawn.
Up to the present the Joint Committee have monitored the agenda for European Parliament meetings and provided briefings for the members. The need for briefings is not expected to arise in a serious form until later in the year, in the autumn, when the European Parliament committees to which the Irish representatives are assigned will be known. At that stage the entire matter can be reviewed. It is understood, also, that briefings are given to the European Parliament representatives by the various political groups in Europe.
The situation is that the European Parliament themselves are now, because the members are directly elected, duty bound to provide the facilities for their members. I would like to point out that the allowances for secretarial, research for whatever purposes, paid to former nominated members of the European Parliament — and I am sure they will continue and may even be improved — were of the order of £93.65 a month flat rate, portion of which is paid automatically to cover expenses incurred by the member in the exercise of his European mandate, plus £374.60 a month which must be accounted for, and which is to cover expenditure incurred in employing an assistant on the basis of a private contract. A substantial amount of funds was available to previous members for such back-up and research facilities, in addition to what was provided by the House.
As I said, I have no reason to doubt that those amounts of money will be available and will continue to be there for the newly elected members, and I am sure they will be improved. The point I want to make quite clearly is that they are now directly elected members of the European Assembly and it is the duty of that Assembly to provide these research facilities and back-up services for their own members. Therefore, the facilities provided by the House are being withdrawn, but the existing facilities, as they have been known to the previous members, can, I am sure, be availed of until such time in the autumn as it becomes clearer which facilities will be available from the European Assembly.
The Minister is trying to have it both ways when he does not want to continue these facilities. It is important that he has now clearly uttered the word, which people knew to be the fact in practice, that these facilities are being withdrawn. When he is justifying the withdrawing of facilities he says it is the responsibility of the European Assembly to look after these costs. If that is true, why is it not the responsibility of the European Assembly to pay the salaries of the members? He cannot have it both ways. These people are being paid less than anybody else to offer as good a service as any other European parliamentarians, a sum of £6,000 a year, and some of that has to go on salaries. The continuing of this activity would have been a justification of further pressure for a proper solution to the problem of salaries. I do not think there is any saving of money because there are no moneys involved in this section. We are taking away a service which exists for other people. We are simply denying an access which was given to the directly nominated members of the European Parliament.
For the sake of a piece of bureaucratic tidiness we are wilfully diminishing the quality of service given by European parliamentarians. This is a very retrograde thing to do. I am very sorry the Minister in his wisdom did not see fit to accept this amendment. I regret to say that I do not find his explanation satisfactory. This is an important issue because all that we do ought to be concerned with two things, a proper solution to the salary problem and the provision of an environment in which these people can work properly. In the life of this State we have never produced an environment where Members of the Oireachtas could work properly. It was almost as if those with real control of the money and administration did not want the Oireachtas to work properly, because the facilities here are pathetic. Here, when we get a new start with a new Assembly which will have profoundly important effects for us, we are accepting a disadvantaged situation for our parliamentarians. It is retrograde and it seems a violation of all the high promises and high aspirations. I hope I will find enough support to divide the House on this because I do not find the Minister's rejection of this reasonable, practical and possible amendment satisfactory.
I support the arguments made by Senator Keating. We should be as generous as possible towards our European parliamentary representatives. Whereas it may be argued that if we agree to supply some of the services and necessary back-up that our European representatives require, this will be an argument for the European Parliament not to offer the services, I do not believe that. I think the European Parliament will offer services across the board and there is no guarantee that they will be sufficient for the needs of our representatives.
Senator Hussey made the point that we have a very small delegation in a very big parliament. As everybody who has anything to do with the European system knows, all the delegates are absolutely flooded with documentation and it will require an army to sift through the documentation the representatives will get. If we are not generous towards our representatives in Europe then their performance will match our lack of generosity. Because we are a small country and because our representation in Europe is particularly small, we have to ensure that our men and women in Europe are well briefed. Owing to this deal which is being discussed, our European representatives' salaries will be so ludicrous that we will have the same situation, only to a much worse extent, as exists in this House. There are people who would be outstandingly good candidates for membership of either House of the Oireachtas who cannot afford to stand because the salaries are so ridiculous. Most full-time Members of either House are losing money at the moment. They give up their jobs and generally end up losing money. If we are going to see the same sort of situation apply in Europe, and if we are not going to augment the ludicrous salaries with the best possible service for the people involved, then I think we should have our heads examined. I strongly support this amendment.
The Government are not, and neither am I, trying to have it both ways, as Senator Keating said. The question of the salary was a decision taken by the Council. Heretofore the representatives in the European Parliament did not have a salary. Therefore, provision had to be made to provide a salary and because of the situation we found ourselves in, we had to introduce this legislation to enable us to pay our representatives.
As regards facilities, allowances, expenses and so on, no matter what kind of expense it might be — whether for travelling, subsistence, research or secretarial — the majority were provided by the European Assembly. While the amount provided by the Oireachtas was important, it was not in any way elaborate. Everybody will agree on that. As I said, it is not easy at this stage to envisage what arrangements will be made by the new, directly elected European Assembly regarding these questions of research and facilities. Until that becomes known, there is no necessity for us to legislate for what might be a hypothetical situation. As I said, the matter can be reviewed.
In the event of the Assembly not providing these facilities, under section 3 as it now stands, the provision of research facilities and back-up services involves expenses. As there are only 15 people involved I assume that if such facilities were to be provided they would be provided on a cash basis, as an allowance towards the cost of the provision of these services. If that situation arises section 3 as it now stands could cover that. Section 3 reads:
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 Minister said we do not yet know what will be provided by the European Assembly in the line of research facilities or allowances. It seems to me that Ireland has a special case to make for positive discrimination for our members. Do we have any intention of making representations before decisions are made about what research facilities will be available, considering Irish members live very far away from where the Parliament sits and have a lot of extra travelling? Will we be passive about this or have we any function at all in asking for the kind of facilities Senator Keating and Senator Robinson and some of us feel will be very necessary for our members?
We are not discriminating against any member of the European Assembly.
I did not say that. I said we should ask about——
It has been suggested that our members are being discriminated against.
We should have discrimination in our favour.
It is their duty to see that in the Assembly of which they are directly elected members, they are not discriminated against. The same applies to any Member of the Dáil or Seanad. It is the Parliament who will make these decisions and the representatives from Ireland, or any other country, will be there to ensure that they are provided with adequate facilities.
Travel expenses are paid and quite liberal expenses have been paid in the past and I have no reason to doubt that other allowances will not be maintained, continued or even improved. There is no question of us discriminating against the Irish representatives, and I am quite positive that the 15 members from Ireland will ensure that the European Assembly when they make their decision about all kinds of facilities will not allow themselves to be discriminated against.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 22.
Tá
- Blennerhassett, John.
- Burke, Liam.
- Butler, Pierce.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kilbride, Thomas.
- McAuliffe, Timothy.
- Markey, Bernard.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- Staunton, Myles.
- West, Timothy Trevor.
Níl
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Cassidy, Eileen.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Cranitch, Micheál.
- Donnelly, Michael Patrick.
- Dowling, Joseph.
- Ellis, John.
- Goulding, Lady.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Herbert, Anthony.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jago, R. Valentine.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lambert, C. Gordon.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, William.
- Whitaker, Thomas Kenneth.
Tellers: Tá, Senators McAuliffe and Burke; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and Brennan.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.
Section 4 agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 7:
In subsection (2), page 4, line 33, before "section 5 (5)" to insert "section 2 (6) or".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.