asked the Minister for Finance why he did not accept the recommendations of the Employer/Labour Conference in relation to the payment of increases to the Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas; and, in view of his decision, if Members of either House have the right of appeal to the Labour Court.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Employer/Labour Conference Pay Recommendations.
41.
The Special Committee of the Employer/Labour Conference did not, in fact, make any recommendations about parliamentarians' salaries: it indicated what the levels would be on the basis of certain assumptions. The Government gave full consideration to the report of the special committee and they are satisfied that their decisions on the pay of parliamentarians as announced in the budget speech, are fair and reasonable and should be accepted as a final determination of the question.
Could the Minister tell me why he considers parliamentarians second rate citizens in comparison with such people as judges and certain higher civil servants?
I would prefer to put it another way. The Government do not consider that parliamentarians are superior to social welfare beneficiaries who will not receive any amelioration of their lot——
The Minister is not going to get away with that.
Are the judges?
What about the judges?
Would the Members opposite please contain their anger at being compared with the social welfare recipients and allow me to reply?
I have had many years experience as a trade union executive and I know exactly how these things work. The Minister, in fact, is insulting every Member of this House and you yourself, Sir.
The Deputy is making a statement.
The Government will not accept that it is an insult to compare the lot of social welfare recipients with the position of parliamentarians. May I say in reply to the Deputy's other irrelevant point that if any change has been made in the status and pay situation of judges that change was made by the previous administration and it is one which we inherited and in relation to which we had to make amends.
That is not correct.
In the light of this assertion by the Minister that he or his Government inherited the situation from the previous Government as far as judges and parliamentarians are concerned, he said in his original reply that the Government decided to make their decision on a fair and just basis. How can he equate that statement with putting Members of this House in an inferior position to judges in light of the fact that the previous Government established what was regarded as a fair and just basis for the remuneration of both the legislature and the judiciary?
Deputy Lynch must be aware, after several years as head of the Government, that government is an exercise in choice and the choice facing this administration, which we took bravely and make no apology for, was the choice as to the date upon which the increases would operate. If fair remuneration was not paid to parliamentarians before the change of administration that is not our responsibility, it is the responsibility of those who held office at the time in question. As far as this administration were concerned the first date on which they could give amelioration to the misery of the under-privileged in our community was 1st July and we did not consider it appropriate that parliamentarians, who are comparatively better shod and better provided for, should receive any benefit at an earlier date. We make no apology for that decision.
I am not making any comparison with recipients of social welfare benefits and nobody can deny to this side the concern that we showed for that section of our community. Is the Minister aware that the previous Government submitted the Devlin Commission's report to the Employer/Labour Conference to decide whether or not that report was in conformity with the national wage agreement and decided that the Government decision on it would be dependent on whether or not the commission considered it to be in such conformity? Is he aware that there was no intention on the part of the previous Government to differentiate between the judiciary and the legislature in this respect? Is the Minister further aware that the decision of the Employer/Labour Conference was conveyed to the Government only in the last month of last year and before the first session of the new Dáil could have taken place? Is he aware, therefore, that the responsibility evolved on this Government and not on the previous Government fairly to implement that recommendation?
The Deputy has asked many questions.
In perfect sequence.
If the previous administration were in earnest about implementing the recommendations of the Special Committee of the Employer/Labour Conference it would have been reasonable to assume that they would have made some provision in the Estimates for so doing. They made no such provision.
We did not make the Estimates, you did.
The Estimates were virtually complete when the Government took office in March last and no provision whatever had been made between December and March——
That is not correct.
——for the inclusion of any figure to meet the amount required to implement the recommendations of the Special Committee of the Employer/Labour Conference, as must be apparent from the budget figures where we had to make an additional provision to meet the bill. If the last administration decided to kick to touch instead of playing the ball and if they achieved no goal theirs is the responsibility for kicking to touch. If they wanted the credit, if credit they call it, for paying parliamentarians ahead of social welfare beneficiaries they had the opportunity and they did not take it.
That is completely irrelevant.
It is not.
May I ask——
No, Deputy Colley. We have given a lot of time to this question.
Am I to take it from what the Minister has said that in his view, and in the view of his Government, the previous Government should, without regard to the national agreement, have implemented the Devlin Commission? If the Minister does not mean that what does he mean?
(Interruptions.)
Would the Minister answer the question?
I am passing on to the next question.
I asked this question last week and I got no reply. Is the Minister refusing to answer?
I am passing to the next question.
42.
asked the Minister for Finance whether the report of the Special Committee of the Employer/ Labour Conference in relation to higher civil servants has been implemented; if so, from what date; and the dates on which the salaries of such grades were increased in any of the years from 1968 to the present year.
Since 1968 the pay increases under the various rounds have been applied to all higher civil servants with effect from the following dates : 1 June, 1968, 11th Round—Phase I; 1 June, 1969, 11th Round—Phase II; I April, 1970. 12th Round—Phase I; I January. 1971. 12th Round—Phase II; I January, 1972, National Agreement 1970-Phase I; I January, 1973, National Agreement 1970—Phase II: I June, 1973, National Agreement 1972—Phase I.
As regards the national agreement increases, these revisions and their effective dates were in line with the recommendations made by the Special Committee of the Employer-Labour Conference which were, as I announced in my budget statement of 16th May last, accepted by the Government.
In addition, officers with scales of pay whose maxima fell short of the maximum of the assistant secretary scale were given an interim anomaly increase under clause 6 of the National Agreement 1970. One half of the increase was paid with effect from 1st October, 1970, and the remainder with effect from 1st April, 1971.
In so far as the report of the Special Committee of the Employer/Labour Conference is concerned the only outstanding issue in regard to the higher Civil Service is the resolution of their anomaly claims under clause 18 of the current national agreement.
I should like to ask the Minister why, having regard to the reason he has given for the non-implementation of the Employer/Labour Conference Report in regard to parliamentarians, he considers that the higher civil servants who are, to use his own phrase which I quote from memory, "better fed and better shod than the social welfare classes", should receive their increases in advance of those of the social welfare classes?
I think the Deputy's memory is failing him. What I did say is that parliamentarians were. by and large, better fed and better shod than social welfare recipients.
We take it, then that the higher civil servants are not better fed or better shod than the social welfare classes?
I am passing to Question No. 43.
The Minister should answer this question.