Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Nov 1977

Vol. 302 No. 3

Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial, Parliamentary and Judicial Offices (Amendment) Bill, 1977: Second and Subsequent Stages.

Minister for the Public Service (Mr. Colley)

I move:

"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The main purpose of this Bill is to provide for the remuneration and superannuation of Ministers of State who will be appointed when the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1977, has been enacted. I am also availing of the opportunity afforded by the Bill to introduce a change simplifying the procedure governing the making of orders increasing the remuneration of parliamentarians and the Judiciary.

When the Ministers and Secretaries Bill was under discussion the increased volume and complexity of the duties falling on Government Ministers was recognised in a debate which traced successive developments back to the foundation of the State and there was general agreement on the urgent need for remedial action. Deputies are already aware from the debate in question that it is proposed to appoint ten Ministers of State as compared with seven Parliamentary Secretaries. This should make an important contribution towards alleviating the problem of the greatly increased volume of work, but I also made it clear in the course of the debate that the level of duties envisaged for the new Ministers of State would be significantly higher than that at present being discharged by the Parliamentary Secretaries. It is envisaged that they will relieve Government Ministers of an important range of duties. Their standing as Ministers of State should help them to operate more effectively and with greater acceptance at international meetings and in the discharge of ministerial functions. The object of section 6 (b) of the present Bill is to obtain the necessary authority to pay salaries to up to ten Ministers of State as compared with the seven Parliamentary Secretaries covered in this respect by existing legislation.

The rate of remuneration for the Ministers of State must of course reflect the increased scope and importance of the duties involved. At present a Minister of the Government is paid a salary of £7,354 in addition to his allowance of £6,273 as a TD, giving him a total annual remuneration of £13,627. A Parliamentary Secretary is paid a total of £9,993, made up of a salary as office holder of £3,720 and his TD's allowance of £6,273. Within this framework and taking due account of the duties envisaged, the Government decided that total pay of £11,000 for Minister of State would be appropriate, made up of a salary of £4,727—as set out in section 6 (a) of the Bill—in addition to the allowance of £6,273 as a TD.

As Members of the House are aware, the procedures involved in revising the rates of pay of parliamentarians are complicated and give rise to unnecessary duplication. I am taking the opportunity of this Bill to make a small but, I hope, desirable change in the legislation. Existing legislation provides that when it is proposed to make an order increasing the pay of parliamentarians a draft of the order shall be laid before Dáil Éireann and, if a resolution disapproving of the draft is passed by the Dáil within the next subsequent 21 days on which it has sat after the draft is laid before it, the order shall not be made. If no resolution is passed the Government may make the order and again present it to Dáil Éireann. This procedure involves laying two separate documents on the same matter before Dáil Éireann with an interval of between two and six months—if a recess intervenes—between the laying of the documents. Apart from the unnecessary duplication, this situation can give the mistaken impression that parliamentarians are getting pay increases on the double. It is proposed to change the procedure so as to eliminate this double submission of documents to Dáil Éireann but leaving unchanged the powers of the Dáil in relation to orders. Sections 4 and 7 (b) of the Bill provide that orders dealing with the pay of parliamentarians will be made by the Government and presented to Dáil Éireann. The orders will automatically come into effect after 21 sitting days unless resolutions annulling them are passed by the Dáil within that period.

Sections 8 and 9 (1) of the Bill enable pensions to be paid to Ministers of State on the basis applicable to former Parliamentary Secretaries and by reference to the salary for a Minister of State.

Section 6 of the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill will have the effect of abolishing the Office of Parliamentary Secretary. Section 9 (2) of the present Bill enables an hypothetical Parliamentary Secretary salary rate to be determined so as to enable the pensions payable to or in respect of former Parliamentary Secretaries to be revised, as appropriate, from time to time in conjunction with the revision of the pensions of other office holders.

Over the years the legislative provisions for the revision of the remuneration of the Judiciary have been kept in line with those applicable to parliamentarians. In view of this it is proposed, in section 11, to amend the legislative procedures in relation to the making of orders increasing judicial remuneration in exactly the same way as is proposed for parliamentarians in sections 4 and 7 (b).

Essentially the Bill is complementary to the measure for the appointment of new Ministers of State which has already been passed by the House. I recommend it to Dáil Éireann for speedy and favourable consideration.

Mr. P. Barry

We have dealt with the proposal to appoint new Ministers of State under the Ministers and Secretaries Bill which passed this House about a fortnight ago. We are now dealing with the remuneration of these Ministers of State. I suppose politicians anywhere in the world are as sensitive as we are of the rate at which they are paid. There is a feeling shared by some politicians, and certainly by the general public who have the impression that this is not really a job for which somebody should be paid, that it is on the level of a vocation or calling which does not necessitate remuneration at the same rate as comparable jobs outside this building. Of course, Ministers, TDs and Senators have families, obligations, hopes for the future, and they have no assurance of continuance in office. Anybody coming in here, say, in his mid-twenties cannot look forward to being here until he is 65. He might lose his seat after a few years. The situation is totally unsatisfactory in regard to the method of determining the salaries of Ministers and TDs. From my observations both as a Minister and as an ordinary TD I would suggest that Members of this House would do well to join a trade union in order that they would be represented properly and that their rates of pay would be negotiated properly. Of course it is necessary that there be public accountability, that the public be aware of our salary structure but there must be some way of arranging our pay fairly without putting us through the embarrassment of appearing to arrange our own rates of pay. I am glad to note that the Minister has made a sensible amendment to the existing method.

I am not pretending to have a solution to the problem of our having to debate our rates of pay at regular intervals but would it not be better to have a system whereby the rates of pay would be determined by the Leaders of the three parties or, perhaps, by a number of members from each of the parties in both Houses as well as a representative of the independents?

It is not possible to live wildly on a salary of £6,273. The rural Deputy, in particular, clocks up a very high mileage in his car. All of us must attend many functions and must be seen to be generous to the various calls made on us. In addition politicians have the ordinary expenses that other people have. Apart from the money factor there are great rewards for being in politics. There is, for instance, a sense of contributing in some way to the building of the State, regardless of which side of the House one is on. There is, too, a great sense of fulfilment in being a politician but I do not think these rewards should be regarded as being sufficient reason for depriving some Members of the House of a proper standard of living. I am endeavouring to choose words carefully while suffering from the embarrassment of having to talk of these matters.

The argument is put forward from time to time that most TDs have occupations other than their political careers. That is true in many cases. It is true of myself but there are perhaps 25 per cent or more of the Members who depend entirely on their salaries as TDs. In the last Seanad there was an unusually high number of Senators who were endeavouring to live solely on their Seanad salaries. They were full-time politicians. No doubt many Members of the present Seanad are in the same position.

We must find a balance between overpaying parliamentarians and paying them inadequately especially having regard to the debate going on regarding the levels of pay that will apply to those Members who will be elected to the European Parliament. Nobody is suggesting that we should be paid a salary that is anywhere near that paid to German parliamentarians, for instance, but at the same time it is in the interest of the public that there be as many full-time politicians as possible, people who have a sense of duty in regard to contributing to the building of the nation but who will not be deterred from coming forward by reason of fear of the financial consequences that might result to themselves and their families.

I hope the Minister will discuss with the Cabinet the possibility of some outside body being asked to assess proper rates of remuneration for TDs and Ministers. Whatever would be agreed would have to be made an order of this House so that there would be an opportunity of debating it here. Such a system would relieve us of the embarrassment of appearing to give ourselves extra money. If we could find a basis on which all Members of the House could be paid, the salary structure could then be tied into a national wage agreement or some such formula.

It is proposed to pay the new Ministers of State a gross salary of £11,000 a year. That includes their salaries as ordinary Members of the House. The Minister assures us that these people will be undertaking extra duties. We have not been told though to which areas the three extra people will be allocated. I am assuming that the seven Parliamentary Secretaries will remain in their present positions although that is not necessarily so.

Mr. Colley

It is not necessarily so but it is a reasonable assumption.

Mr. P. Barry

Regarding the other three, I suggest to the Taoiseach that one of them be made responsible solely for all matters appertaining to the EEC. The work in this regard has become very complex. It occupies the time of a number of Ministers but we need one expert who can oversee the whole field and ensure that what is happening in one Department is not infringing on or overlapping something in another Department. That is why I am suggesting that one of the new Ministers of State be appointed a "Mr. Europe" who would be in a position to oversee the inputs from various Departments in EEC terms. This situation would make for the smooth running not only of the Departments but of the Government as a whole. I agree with the Bill. Obviously, extra remuneration should be made in respect of extra duties. A Parliamentary Secretary up to now has been in a kind of limbo, somewhere between being a backbench TD but not quite a Minister and who was presumed not to be occupied for five days a week although he was frequently occupied seven days a week. I agree with the salary suggested for the new Ministers of State.

Mr. M. O'Leary

We support the amendment proposed by the Minister. It is agreed on all sides of the House that if the new Ministers of State are to carry out the range of responsible duties that the Minister has indicated will be theirs, the salaries suggested are not excessive.

The Minister said that he will be availing of the passage of this measure to ensure a simpler formula in future for the payment of salaries to Members of the Oireachtas. I support what Deputy P. Barry said, namely, that in this House we should try to arrange a salary structure for Members so that they need not depend on other occupations or second incomes to maintain a standard of living while serving in the House. I support the Bill.

Minister for the Public Service (Mr. Colley)

I thank Deputies for their approach to this Bill. It is clear that it has the support of all sides of the House. There are, perhaps, one or two points which I should mention arising out of some of the points made by Deputies P. Barry and M. O'Leary. First of all, I cannot dispute Deputy Barry's contention that there is a great deal of embarrassment felt in this House when it comes to the question of discussing the remuneration of Deputies, Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and, now, Ministers of State. That is a fact; I cannot deny it. As far as I am concerned, however, I do not feel in the least embarrassed. Having regard to the volume and level of work I perform I feel I am not overpaid and I am not ashamed to say that. I know everybody does not take that view. The nature of the embarrassment that arises here is because, as was pointed out, in effect, the House has to decide the remuneration——

Mr. P. Barry

That is what I meant. I felt I was underpaid.

Mr. Colley

I would point out— because it may have slipped Deputies' memories—that there was an independent review of the remuneration of Deputies, Senators and office-holders in 1972, conducted by the Devlin Group. One of the findings of that group which was of interest was that on average a Deputy spent 72 hours a week performing his duties as a TD. We know—but perhaps many members of the public do not—that the amount of time spent on parliamentary duties is a relatively small proportion only of the time spent by a Deputy on his duties as a TD. The fact is that there was an independent assessment and certain recommendations were made which were referred to the Employer-Labour Conference. Unfortunately—I do not want to go back over this or the reasons for it—the recommendations of the Employer-Labour Conference were not fully accepted by the previous Government who received the report just after they went into office, or just before they came into office; anyway it was one of the first matters with which they had to deal. Had they been in office longer perhaps they might have dealt with it differently. But the full amounts recommended by the Employer-Labour Conference were not implemented.

Since then what has happened is that national pay agreement awards have been applied to the remuneration of Deputies and Senators. But it might also be no harm to point out that national pay agreement awards have not been applied to the remuneration of office-holders as such, that is, Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, the Ceann Comhairle, Leas-Cheann Comhairle of the Dáil and Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach of the Seanad. Since December, 1975, the national pay agreements have not been applied to their remuneration, only to that portion of it that they receive as a Deputy or Senator.

With regard to the point raised by Deputy P. Barry about the appointment of a Minister of State as a "Mr. Europe", this is a matter which is being considered. At this stage I am not in a position to indicate the allocation of duty that will occur as between the Ministers of State. Leaving aside the increased level of duties that will be involved it is possible there may be a re-allocation as between different Departments, as compared with the present arrangement of Parliamentary Secretaries; that is certainly conceivable. The role of Ministers of State in relation to Europe will certainly be increased. Indeed, that is one of the reasons for making the change, as I explained in an earlier Bill.

The whole question of the co-ordination of the Government's approach to the problems arising within the EEC is a very important one. Deputy P. Barry touched on it. I want merely to say that we are very concerned about this and are devising machinery to ensure that the Government can have an overall view on this. As Deputies P. Barry and M. O'Leary will be well aware from their own experience in government, there is a grave danger that each Department will be concerned with the matters that concern it and will be deciding priorities within Departmental terms whereas the national interest would require a co-ordination of the various items arising concerning different Departments and a decision taken on the priorities in that regard. We are very concerned about this. We are at present devising machinery which we hope will be much more effective in enabling the Government to make decisions on national priorities, as distinct from Ministerial or Departmental ones.

If one thinks about it it will be clear that the necessity for such machinery would be satisfied merely by the appointment of a Minister of State as "Mr. Europe". It would not be possible for any Minister of State, or indeed any Minister of the Government, to make the necessary decisions on priorities. It is a matter that would have to be decided by the Government. Perhaps, in many cases, it could be done by a Cabinet Sub-Committee but, in certain cases, it would have to go to the whole Government. Having said that, I am not ruling out the possibility of an approach something on the lines suggested by Deputy P. Barry in regard to one Minister of State. That is one possibility that is being examined.

I do not think there was any other point raised with which I need to deal and I thank Deputies for their approach to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Committee Stage?

Mr. Colley

Now.

Mr. P. Barry

We are noting the last line of the Minister's speech.

Mr. Colley

I thank the Deputy.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reportted without amendment and passed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This Bill is certified a Money Bill in accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution.