Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I agree with the general thrust of this legislation which I believe is necessary. That said, I have a number of questions for the Minister of State.

Whereas there is broad public acceptability — I have no doubt this issue is again running in front of the media and public opinion — that service in the European Parliament may not be included as service for the superannuation schemes under the Houses of the Oireachtas, I would like to make a few comments on the matter. This goes against the spirit of most pension schemes where like work can be counted as long as contributions are made. I believe this provision is unnecessary. It also goes against the major tenet of the European view on pensions which is that they should be portable from one type of occupation to another, in particular within the European Union, and that they should be designed in that way. This is a much more sensible way of dealing with the question of double pensions or whatever concerns the Taoiseach has at this time.

I cannot understand — I did not hear the Minister of State mention this in his Second Stage speech — the reason for the schedule of exclusions. Why should a Member of the European Parliament not be an employee of Bord na gCon, on the board of An tÚdarás um Ard-Oideachas or on the Law Reform Commission? I am not seeking an explanation for this as I know there is none. I would like to know if any Minister ever asks a draftsperson the reason for inclusion of these exclusions. I would like to know whether the officials — I know they cannot answer me — ever challenge the draftspeople on the inclusion of these exclusions? This is akin to saying that a person, because he or she is a politician, is too corrupt to stand on these other issues. I do not see the point in this measure.

The issue of pay is dealt with well in the legislation. Also covered is the issue of expenses. There has been continuous war about expenses in the European Parliament and in the UK about expenses there. I know exactly how this happened as the same almost happened in this Parliament. There are many people in both Houses of this Parliament who believe that the easy way to reward is through expenses rather than salaries. Thankfully, both Houses of the Oireachtas have rejected that option over the past 20 years and insisted instead on dealing with salary claims in public. People can argue about what politicians are paid but they will not be able to look under the carpet for the sorts of issues that arose in London.

How are expenses calculated in the European Parliament and the Oireachtas? We have nothing to lose in asking outside bodies to develop a formula for Members' expenses. If I live in Schull and represent Cork South-West in the Dáil, I would have to travel to Dublin several days per week while also maintaining an office in my constituency. I would inevitably incur expenses in terms of research and secretarial staff and telephone and Internet communications. In the private sector, it is not difficult to work out the reasonable cost of these outgoings. Politicians' outgoings are high not because they are paid higher expenses than anyone else — they are tied to the rates paid to public and civil servants — but because some Members live on the other side of the country and travel several times per week to Dublin while also looking after large constituencies at weekends. No private sector operation would or could be designed in that manner.

Expenses have to be addressed to sustain our system of democracy. The task is not difficult once one realises that a Member has to be in Dublin a number of days per week and is required to keep an office. Reasonable mileage allowances can be calculated based on constituency size so that representatives can attend meetings and functions over the course of a year. That is 20 times more effective than the current system of vouching expenses which entails large back office operations and considerable paperwork because someone has to decide whether a particular meeting involves representation or simply canvassing. People make mistakes or abuse the system because all systems can be abused.

I discussed this matter previously with the Minister of State when we were wearing different hats. I have consulted several international companies, such as American Express, and found that they take a simple approach to the matter. They work out a figure based on where an employee lives and what they would reasonably require from him or her over the course of a year in terms of travel, accommodation and communications and they only ask for receipts if the annual claim exceeds 80% of the estimate. That system saves the companies money in back office operations and is easier on everybody.

In terms of the European project, it is important that Members of the European Parliament are properly resourced. Equally, however, it is important that the public has confidence in them. Throughout Europe politics is currently at a low ebb. Anti-politics votes are being cast all the time. We must realise, however, that whatever the flaws of democracy, the alternative is unthinkable. We only have to look at the images coming from Tehran over recent days or recall the protests by Solidarnosc in Poland or against the other side of autocracy, the Shah, in Tehran in the 1970s.

It is important that we sell this message as part of our efforts to gain support for the Lisbon treaty. The Minister of State made an elegant comment about Europe being minor in budgetary terms but major in regulatory terms. These are important issues. I commend the IFA on its forward thinking in outlining the impact of Europe on Irish agriculture and the food industry, although I will not comment on its carry-on last year. Over recent weeks the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, has done a fine job in raising these issues.

I do not want us to spend the next six months sorting out people who are never going to buy into this deal. We have heard how we should proceed and we have done the business in terms of reaching agreement with our European partners. Most reasonable people will accept our explanation if it is made by all groups. I hope all Members of the Government take a strong stand on these issues, and not only the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs. I support this Bill, even though I raised a number of questions which I hope the Minister of State will consider for the future.