In small mitigation of Mr. Geraghty's position I have to say that perhaps there is a marginal possibility that he has such a basic misconception of the provisions of the pay agreement because those negotiations took place over a period of virtually two months and Mr. Geraghty attended for the last meeting and, perhaps, made a guest appearance at the second last meeting. It may be that because of his non-attendance, and the fact that he was represented by others, he now so misunderstands the provisions of the pay agreement. Otherwise I can only say in all honesty that there has been a deliberate attempt made to confuse the issue, to muddy the waters and suggest something that is totally fallacious and which I know could only be rejected by the other trade union negotiators who participated in a genuine way and understand the provisions of the pay agreement. Irrespective of which hat he is wearing the statement ill behoves somebody whose salary, expenses and other allowances are far in excess of the level to which Deputies will move to belatedly if the provision is passed.
I should like to thank the Members who contributed, Deputies Doyle, Brady, Pat Cope Gallagher and Dowling and Minister of State Barrett. Perhaps the best summing up in regard to this matter was made by Deputy Bell. He made his contribution at a time, unfortunately, when there was not as high an attendance in the various galleries of the House as there would normally be. He pointed out clearly that he was speaking as a trade unionist, a former trade union official and a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. He suggested that no trade union official or trade unionist would tolerate the situation which has pertained here in recent years in regard to Members of the Oireachtas. I am quoting what the Deputy said because the various galleries are fuller now than they were. The Deputy also said that the majority of trade union officials to his knowledge and from his experience were, through the combination of their various allowances and salaries, in a substantially better position as far as personal finances were concerned than were Members of this Parliament. He had some fairly direct remarks to express to those he described as his fellow trade unionists in the press and I am sure they will accurately record and report those views.
Deputy Bell pointed out quite trenchantly to the House that in his experience as a trade union official the intent in the Bill to pay belatedly normal pay rounds without retrospection was unprecedented and represented a sacrifice on the part of the people affected which would not be acceptable in trade union circles on behalf of their members. In fairness, that situation which is factually correct — that Members will permanently be at a loss of £2,300 in comparison to others who were at the same salary level in June 1981 — has not been as widely or accurately reported to the general public as it should have been. Deputy Bell went further and stated that at one stage he had invited members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on an all-party basis to ask Members to form a local branch of one union or another, to join that union and ask that union to negotiate directly on their behalf. I am sorry the Deputy is not here because I would love to hear from him which union he is suggesting they ought to join. I have my own views in relation to my limited experience and, perhaps, the recommendations I might make as to the union might not be recommendations I would make in as laudatory a fashion in regard to my other dealings with certain unions.
Deputy Bell summed up the position accurately. He has indicated over recent months that unless the Government mended their hand in regard to this matter he would consider taking it to the Labour Court and asking it to adjudicate on the situation. I suspect the court would say that this did not come within its terms of reference but equally I suspect that had the court seen fit to adjudicate that those who complained about the extent of the provisions of the Bill would be complaining in even more strident terms.
Deputies Dowling and Bell referred to the editorial in today's issue of the Irish Independent and I should like to join with them in saying that was genuinely a fair attempt on the part of that newspaper accurately to present the situation. I do not think the way the matter has been presented by our friends in the media so far in other respects has been as fair or balanced. For a few moments I should like to deal with what it says in the papers. The political correspondents factually reported yesterday's briefing on what was contained in the Bill. It was as accurate as one could hope to see. I do not think any Member has any quibble with that presentation. The editorials in some of the newspapers, and some of the articles in the evening newspapers, were difficult to follow. In the issue of The Irish Press I purchased yesterday, which was apparently the country edition, the headline was, “Dail's 19 per cent on Pay and Perks” but in the later edition the headline was “Coalition opts for 19 Per Cent Rise”. Presumably, in the light of the unstinted remarks of the Opposition Chief Whip, and other speakers on the Fianna Fáil side, The Irish Press subeditors will avail of the opportunity tomorrow to rectify the situation and explain that the measure has the support of Fianna Fáil under similar headlines. I do not know why it was necessary to change the headline from one edition to the other.
The editorials in The Irish Press did not fairly present the situation. That newspaper did not seem to be in line with the manner in which the news reporting of the effect of the decisions was presented. I find it difficult to understand the editorial in today's issue of The Irish Times. That editorial concludes:
But an opportunity to perform a bold and memorable act, in publicly renouncing an increase, has been missed; an opportunity for imaginative and inspiring leadership.
That does not take any notice of the fact that Members had not had the normal increases paid to them and that they are being permanently obliged with the passage of this legislation to forego an amount in excess of £2,000.
I would remind the House that in 1981 the Government of which I was a member decided to implement belatedly the last phase of the national pay agreement in so far as non-office holder Deputies and Senators were concerned and also members of the Judiciary. At that time members of the Government decided voluntarily to forego the effect of that increase in the hope, as The Irish Times suggested today, of encouraging wage restraint. For the benefit of Members of the House, the extent of reportage in The Irish Times of that decision was two inches of comment. The opportunity was missed by responsible people in the media to follow that decision and to invite others to do likewise. The coverage in The Irish Press was perhaps one quarter of an inch longer. We had to search three archives to get a copy of the Irish Independent of that day. That was the only paper that gave the matter any decent coverage. It is very difficult to reconcile the view fairly expressed by an editorial writer that the opportunity should be taken to set an example to have wage restraint when we remember what happened in the past, when there was so little response to it, so little coverage of it and virtually no comment in the editorials.
In my opening remarks I said I was quite certain that Members of this House would be the first to agree if there was to be a general standstill on wages and incomes to bring about a correction in the imbalance in the nation's finances. However, I do not think it fair to ask Members of Parliament not to take the normal increases recommended by a review body and which have been applied to the rest of the Public Service.
In The Irish Press of today's date there is a news report that is incorrect. That paper seems to confuse the fact that a Deputy from a rural area who has to stay overnight in Dublin when the Dáil is in session is paid an overnight allowance. Instead they take the amount of payment, multiply it by the number of sittings and suggest this is a tax-free element that ends up in the hands of the Deputy. The paper then goes on, as did the Evening Press yesterday, to work out in annual terms the amount of travelling expenses a Deputy would get to travel to Dublin and back, adds that to the tax-free element of the Deputy's salary and suggests he gets £13,000 or £14,000 tax free. Theoretically perhaps that is correct on the basis that all Members manage to hitch a lift to Dublin and stay overnight in the Phoenix Park. As was pointed out by Deputy Bell, the level of travelling expenses and overnight allowances we propose to pay to Members will bring them somewhat in line with, but not quite as much as, what I understand to be the rates generally payable to members of the press and media when they have to stay overnight away from home.
In the same way The Irish Press reported yesterday that Deputies who live within ten miles of Dublin will get a daily attendance allowance. That allowance is in lieu of mileage or subsistence expenses. They worked that out on an annual basis, took the example of a Deputy living eight miles from Dublin who would not be entitled to a mileage expense, worked out an annual sum based on mileage rates, added that to the daily allowance and added those figures to half of the Deputy's allowance. That is incorrect. Neither of the reports in the two papers did any service to a fair, balanced presentation of what is being proposed. If people in the media want to criticise what is being done that is their prerogative and responsibility but, equally, they have a duty and responsibility at least to present in a factual, correct way what is being done and to advance criticisms on that basis.
What we are doing is to pay to Members general provisions that apply to the Civil Service and which were paid to them in the past two years and to pay this without retrospection, in the future to apply the ordinary rate of travel expenses that apply to civil servants and to establish that as the rate to be paid in the future. What we are doing is to give to Members who have to stay overnight an allowance rate of £27.50 which is standard or somewhat less than most of the rates paid by commercial firms and to link that allowance so that it will move automatically. We are increasing the daily allowance from £10 to £16 with a provision to link it in the same way. Those allowances have not increased for three years. We want to ensure that in future the acrimony and misunderstanding of the past few days will not occur again. We do not want the same kind of misunderstanding that has arisen now.
I hope fair-minded people will regard this as a reasonable and realistic approach to the problem. On a personal basis I do not object to the criticisms made. In asking the House to enact the legislation I am providing that in the future Members will have their salary levels and allowance levels, as determined by the independent review body, retained and that they will move equitably and fairly in line with movements in the Public Service. I do not want Governments or Ministers for the Public Service in the future to be placed in the situation in which we found ourselves. I hope by doing that I will have provided a service for democracy and for Parliament.
