Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)

I thank Senators for their contributions and for facilitating the passage of this Bill through the Seanad. Given that today is Bloomsday, I remind them that a notable feature of James Joyce's writing was how steeped it was in Europe and its awareness of how Ireland both enriched and was enriched by being a European country.

As I indicated in my opening comments, this Bill is the culmination of many years of discussions among Members of the European Parliament and the principal institutions of the European Union. It represents the views and considerations of all member states and for the first time establishes a single and appropriate system for remunerating MEPs. In doing so, it fulfils a long-standing ambition of the European Parliament and reflects its growing role in the affairs of the European Union.

The statute on which the legislation is based forms part of European law and is binding on member states. This statute will enter force on the first day of the new parliamentary term, 14 July, and will form a single and transparent set of terms and conditions under which all MEPs will work. While the Bill before us only addresses a small part of these measures in terms of certain transitional provisions for serving MEPs who were re-elected in the recent election, the statute is an extensive document which sets out the rules and general conditions applicable to MEPs in the exercise of their important mandate. It provides, inter alia, for the enshrinement in law of the freedom and independence of Members, the free and non-binding nature of their mandate, the right of initiative within the Parliament, the right to inspect parliamentary files and the preservation of linguistic diversity. These provisions are necessary for enhancing the credibility of a parliament which continues to grow in stature.

The net effect of this Bill is to transfer liability for payment of MEPs' salaries from the Oireachtas to the European Parliament. Ultimately it will transfer the current charge on the Exchequer for salaries and pension costs amounting to €1.8 million in 2009 terms to the Parliament. Given the ongoing restraints on public expenditure in Ireland, this is welcome.

I turn now to some of the points made by Senators during the course of the discussion. Senator MacSharry suggested there should be some incentive for previously elected MEPs to shift to the new system. I wonder whether that should be necessary. When the point is given public spirited MEPs will not lose out by shifting to the new system. On the other hand, the Exchequer gains. All members should be encouraged to shift to the new system and I am sure each party can do that, should it be necessary, with their members.

During my opening contribution I was pleased to see the former Senator Kelly in the Gallery. I congratulated him outside the House earlier. The European Parliament elections were, in some respects, satisfactory for all the main parties. I regret the loss of Eoin Ryan's seat in Dublin but the net effect was to strengthen the country's commitment to Europe. There were eurosceptic candidates and movements challenging which were, I am glad to say, not successful and we are that much further forward as a result.

Obviously, there will be no double taxation. If tax is levied in Europe, credit will be allowed under the national taxation system.

I was present on two occasions in the last Seanad when MEPs addressed this House and it was a very successful exercise. It was organised by this House. It is within the powers of the Leader, the Chair and the Whips and there is nothing I am aware of to prevent that being done again. It provided a useful connection between Members of the European Parliament and this House and it was a very appropriate use of this House in that regard.

I agree that after our experiences last year, and indeed earlier in the decade, there can be no complacency about the second referendum that will take place but the point has been made in this House by Senator O'Toole and I am sure others that reassurances have been sought and, subject to the European Council meeting, we can be reasonably sure they have been obtained and that they will deal with the concerns that are genuine and bona fide. Equally, there are many forces outside this House which will not be satisfied, whatever we come back with, and which will be determined to find conspiracies and dangers lurking and will urge people to vote "No".

It is right that there should be argument and debate and that there should be two sides to the argument but the key questions that must be asked are what conceivable benefit or advantage to Ireland would there be from rejecting the Lisbon treaty the second time, and how will it help our economic position. Parties opposite aspire to be in government, and I know they support the ratification of the Lisbon treaty. It would be a nightmare for them as for us if it were not ratified. If any Government, be it the current one or a future one, had to operate in a position where we were out on a limb, where our continuing membership of the European Union would be daily challenged and where we would be acting to create a major breach, following the next British general election, in what has been achieved in Europe in the past 40 years, we would bear a significant part of the blame for that.

I would not be unmindful of the fact that a large percentage of the arguments being used against Lisbon are straight imports from across the water, especially from the media and, to a point, significant parts of the political system where it does not seem to be possible to have any serious, rationale and unprejudiced discussion on Europe. I would hate for this country to be dragged along behind that particular chariot.

I entered public service first 35 years ago and I recall one of the first questions I was asked when I was interviewed to go into the Department of Foreign Affairs. It was 1974. Britain had entered the EEC with us in 1973 but a referendum on a possible British exit was being mooted; it was held the following year. I was asked what I thought Ireland should do in those circumstances and my clear answer was that I believed Ireland should stay put in the EEC regardless of what Britain chose to do, and that answer remains valid.

It horrifies me that we would even think of overturning what has been, by and large — I do not want to sound too utopian about it — one of the most successful steps in Irish foreign policy, which was to seek EEC membership in the early 1960s, achieve it and then make the most of it. It is unthinkable to me that we would revert to being some sort of semi-dependency on our next door neighbour because there will probably be few other choices left to us at that time.

We have not heard a Sinn Féin voice in this House today but I find it extraordinary the side of the argument it is on because it appears we have two choices. We are in partnership with the whole of Europe, which includes Britain, or we effectively reject the path we were on and committed membership of Europe. We adopt what an ambassador chided me for calling a eurosceptic — he said it was europhobic — attitude in which case we go back to the type of claustrophobic relationship from which we have successfully escaped. Senator O'Toole, in praising the exercise of democracy, contrasted it with other places in the world, for example, in the context of the turmoil in Iran, and one could also mention Burma, or Myanmar it is now called, where the opposition leader is outrageously held in detention.

Senator O'Toole and I were members of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission under the last Seanad. I remember with a shudder that we were urged by many good people that what we needed to do was to adopt the state-of-the-art British vouched expenses system for parliamentary salaries and allowances. We have been able to see in the past month or two exactly what sort of model that is.

The question was raised about the exclusions from membership of certain listed semi-State bodies, which is really a carryover from other legislation. I would have some doubts as to the practicability of this. We have got rid of the dual mandate in regard to the European Parliament and membership of this House. For a long time, it was the case that if one was elected to the European Parliament, one had to decide at the next election which of the two to opt for. Now, the break is instant. I do not believe a person would be satisfactorily able to serve on the board of a semi-State body and be a member of the European Parliament given the amount of travel that is involved.

I will not delay the House any longer. I thank Senators for their co-operation.