EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY (SALARIES AND PENSIONS) BILL (Hansard, 16 July 1979)

§ Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)
Why is an instruction necessary? I suspect that it is because amendments proposed by the Government would be outside the scope of the Bill, even if they were within the scope of the money resolution that we have just passed. However, I cannot believe that the Government, who are proposing to restrict and curtail public expenditure, are trying to persuade the House to provide by law for the expenses of European Assembly Members.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Britton)
The instruction is necessary to enable the Committee to consider the new clause providing that the Secretary of State may, with the concurrence of the Treasury, by order make provision with respect to the allowances which may be available to Representatives in connection with the performance within the United Kingdom of their duties.
I had anticipated explaining matters at slightly greater length when we reach that new clause, but the object of the exercise is not here now to make provision for any such allowances but to give the power for those allowances to be conferred if necessary. It is a contingent 1162 power because as envisaged in the new clause, that power can be exercised only if a resolution of each House is passed in support of the exercise of the power that is proposed.
At the moment the position, as compared with when the Bill was fist envisaged, is that some of the member States of the European Community have passed national legislation conferring allowances and facilities to Members of the European Parliament. It is our view and our intention that those facilities and allowances should be conferred by the Assembly, but there is a new factor in the passage of legislation by other Parliaments conferring such allowances. Therefore, we recognize that it would be wrong for us not—at least—to be able to consider the possibility for this House, without separate legislation but with the approval of another place, if necessary, to make provision for such allowances. It is in order to enable that to be debated that the instruction is before the House.

§ Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)
Later in the evening we shall come to consider new clauses 1 and 2, which are the new clauses that are permitted to be discussed by the House by the instruction. New clause 1 stands in the name of the Opposition. Therefore, I commend my colleagues to support the instruction in order to permit the proposals in new clauses 1 and 2 to be discussed in substance later on.

§ Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby)
We have just been informed that the Government believe that the instruction is necessary. I presume that moneys paid from the Consolidated Fund by this Parliament, whether for salaries, allowances or facilities, will be reclaimed from the European Commission. Is that correct or not? If it is correct, is there to be a reclamation in total of the average of payments made to all the European Representatives or will moneys be paid in accordance with the amount that we claim? The difference in figures might be that, if there is a reclaim from the EEC, either the EEC or the Government could profit from the reduced rate that we are offering to our EEC Representatives rather than the rate that is offered for European Representatives.

§ Mr. English
The Minister is usually very precise in his choice of words. He said that the instruction is necessary. I do not know what necessitates it.

§ Mr. Brittan
I do not think that the House would be much advanced in its deliberation on the Bill by considering whether the instruction is necessary. If it is not necessary, we are proceeding with an abundance of caution, but I think that it is wise to do that.
It is not possible to answer the question of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) concerning who would finance such allowances because the Government are not proposing that any such allowances be paid. All that we are doing at this stage is seeking the consent of the House to an instruction to the Committee which would enable it to consider whether provision should be made for an arrangement whereby the question of such allowances could be brought before the House at a later date.
If the instruction is approved and the Committee considers the new clause, I shall seek to explain that we have no proposals to put to the House at the moment about the payment of such allowances and, therefore, we inevitably have no proposals about how such payments should be financed. It is only in order to enable that to be put before the House, if it is thought necessary, that the instruction is before the House and the new clause will be before the Committee.

§ Mr. George Cunningham
In case there is any confusion on the matter, perhaps the Minister can help us to clear it up. From a glance at the Bill, it seems that it would be outside the confines of the Bill, in normal terms, to move an amendment that permitted the Government to reimburse allowances or expenses, as against salaries.
Since new clauses 1 and 2 relate not to salaries for the performance of the duties of a Member of the European Parliament but to the reimbursement of expenses, that is the justification for the instruction before us. It is in case there were any doubts whether new clauses 1 and 2 were in order. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is the explanation of the instruction.

§ Mr. Brittan
That is correct. I did not feel it necessary to go into the matter 1164 because if by some process of argument it could be suggested that it was possible to bring within the scope of the Bill the new clauses without the instruction, we would all be better off. If the instruction is passed, there can be no doubt about it. The thinking behind the instruction is exactly as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has suggested.