Lauri Laats: Riigikogu members' salary should depend on contribution

The best motivator and overseer for a member of the Riigikogu has always been the voters' judgment on election day, but now the representation of the people in parliament should be more closely monitored and compensation adjusted accordingly, writes Lauri Laats.
The Estonian people's trust in the government and the Riigikogu is at an all-time low, but this comes as no real surprise, as politicians have done everything in their power to make it so.
Even parliamentary debate is slipping into obscurity, as, for example, Finance Minister Jürgen Ligi (Reform) believes that Riigikogu members lack the competence to understand the state budget, let alone engage in dialogue about it. At a time like this, it seems appropriate to reconsider the salaries of members of parliament and tie them more closely to their actual contributions.
Similar practices in Europe
Due to the state's complicated financial situation, several tax increases have already come into effect or are about to be implemented, significantly impacting the daily lives of Estonian people and businesses. In light of this, it is only fair to also reconsider the system for calculating the salaries and expense reimbursements of Riigikogu members.
Under the current law, a Riigikogu member's salary is in no way dependent on whether they participate in committee or plenary sessions, take the floor or vote. In theory, it is even possible for a member of parliament to completely refrain from participating in parliamentary work, without any basis for reducing or suspending their salary. Therefore, the Riigikogu's Center Party group has introduced a bill aimed at linking participation in parliamentary activities to the payment of salaries and benefits for members of the Riigikogu.
This is not an unprecedented move in European legal practice, as similar provisions for reducing members of parliament's salaries can be found in the legislation of several European Union member states.
In eleven European Union member state parliaments (such as Belgium, Greece, Lithuania and Latvia), it is possible to reduce a member's salary due to absence from plenary or committee sessions. In five countries (such as Italy, Cyprus and Germany), parliaments have the option to reduce various allowances for members of parliament who are absent from sessions without a valid reason. Additionally, in Austria, a member of parliament may lose their seat if absent without reason for more than 30 days.
When it comes to reducing parliamentary salaries, different practices and participation thresholds are applied, but a common principle is that the number of absences from votes should not be excessively high. There are also countries, like Finland, where the legal framework allows for a reduction in a parliament member's salary, though, to date, such measures have reportedly never been enforced.
Expenses benefits cut alongside salary
The proposed bill suggests that if a Riigikogu member participates in at least 85 percent of plenary sessions and committee meetings, they will receive their full salary.
If a member participates in less than 85 percent of the sessions and meetings based on committee membership, their salary will be reduced by 15 percent; if participation falls below 70 or 50 percent, their salary will be reduced by 30 or 50 percent, respectively. The participation will be based on the voting records of plenary sessions and committees, excluding justified absences.
Additionally, under the proposed bill, expense reimbursements will be linked to the actual salary paid. If a member has not been sufficiently active and their salary is reduced, their expenses benefit will also be reduced accordingly. Of course, we are open to debating these rates – perhaps they are too strict or maybe they are too lenient.
While this change won't plug the enormous hole in the state budget, it may help close the gap in the public's sense of fairness. Generally, people expect to be paid for the work they do, not because the law mandates payment, regardless of whether they do anything or not.
Until now, it has been said that the best motivator and overseer for a Riigikogu member is the judgment of voters on election day. However, the time has come to more closely monitor how the people's representation in parliament is carried out and adjust compensation accordingly.
--
Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!
Editor: Marcus Turovski