This is a rather long, difficult section and that is why I wanted the opportunity to put down some amendments to it and to some other sections of the Bill. The manner in which it is being rushed through has not given us the opportunity to do that. Much of the section 2 area has already been discussed on Second Stage but there are some parts of it on which there has not been any discussion and which have not been discussed by the Minister either. One particular area is the payment to justices and judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial, Parliamentary and Judicial Offices (Amendment) Bill, 1983: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".
(Interruptions.)
Silence. I want to repeat a request that I have often made. If Deputies want to have informal discussions they should leave the House. As a matter of fact a special area seems to have been constructed out there for informal discussions and it should be availed of.
I raised the point on Second Stage as to why we referred to allowances for members of the Government and we referred to remuneration for judges and justices. I do not understand why there is this difference. The remuneration for judges has not been explained by the Minister. He has not said why he feels this is necessary. It also seems to me that under this section there are different criteria in relation to the payment for judges and justices from that used for other payments.
The answer is no. I gather it is because the legislation was framed at different times and different phrases were used, perhaps one might suspect depending on the particular approach of whoever the parliamentary draftsman at the time was. I suspect that perhaps the use of allowance in relation to the pay of Deputies may have been used a long time ago and continues to be used on a traditional basis. As far as I know up to 1960 the pay of Deputies was totally tax free. Perhaps the draftsman at that time used the phrase allowance because it signified it was a non-taxable income. Apart from that, the use of salary and remuneration in relation to the office holders and the Judiciary has no significance whatsoever.
I accept that. Subsection (6) of this section seems to have different criteria for back payment from the other sections. It seems to me, from a brief study of this Bill, that in relation to the payment to justices they are given retrospection for the different percentages back to the original date. Paragraph (a) of this subsection says that the 2 per cent will be given backdated to 1 December 1981. It states in paragraph (b) that the 6 per cent will be backdated to 1 March 1982. In paragraph (c) it says that the 5 per cent will be backdated to 1 October 1982 and in paragraph (d) it says that the 4.75 per cent will be backdated to 1 September 1983. It seems in those cases that full retrospective payment is being given to justices and the judges of the High Court, and so on down to District Court judges, for all the percentage increases which had presumably not been given at the appropriate date.
I feel that this section has breached the Public Service pay agreement. I was shocked at the vehement and even vicious manner in which the Minister attacked the representative of a trade union who is a member of our party but who spoke outside the House and is unable to reply to what was said in the House. I said on the Second Stage that I accepted that interpretations may be different. It seems to be that the interpretation of retrospection, and so on, is breached by subsection (6) of section 2. As I understand it, the Public Service pay agreement says that where the public servants had proved that they were entitled to certain increases, going back over a time, they were not entitled to get those retrospective increases until 1986. Their back pay could not be paid until January 1986.
It seems to me that subsection (6) is breaching that in regard to the Judiciary if they are getting the full back pay, unless there is something in the Bill which I have not seen. We only got the Bill yesterday and I have not had any time to look up the various Acts which are refered to in section 1. Six different Acts are referred to and I have not had the opportunity of looking at them. I have not got a lead, but as I interpret subsection (6) the judges and justices will get back-pay from 1 December 1981 to date and they will get it this year. Perhaps it is the Minister's intention to ensure that they do not get that back-pay until 1986. That is what he should do under the Public Service pay agreement.
I accept what the Minister said, that I was misinterpreting the Bill in what I said about special increases, and the Minister explained that it refers to special new claims. I also said that there was another subsection about catching up on our back payments: only 40 per cent of the increased percentage could be given from 1 October and that the remainder could not be given until 1985. Those two things seem to me in breach of the Public Service pay agreement. When speaking on Second Stage I said that I considered the increase in the Members' allowances in addition to an increase in their salaries to be somewhat overdoing matters. The Minister should give further consideration to the section with a view to ascertaining whether these increases in allowances are justified. I do not know whether these increases are to be retrospective or whether the salaries aspect is being treated differently from the payments to Members, but if that is the case I should like the Minister to explain why.
I had hoped to outline the situation as clearly as possible in my introductory remarks so as to make the situation clear to all Members, but I am sorry if that has not been the case. The question of payment of the last pay agreement retrospectively applies only in the case of the Judiciary. This is because the House has the capacity to pass legislation relating to Members' salary levels and in this case Members are being invited to pass a Bill that will deprive them of the entitlement to retrospection, but it would not be fair for us to pass a measure which would deprive another Public Service category of retrospection in relation to payments that have been made to all other parts of the Public Service.
I assure the Deputy that there is nothing more sinister than that in the provision. I am sorry if my remarks relating to Mr. Geraghty offended Deputy Mac Giolla's sensitivity, but he must appreciate that when one is described as being blatantly dishonest, as Mr. Geraghty is reported as having described my actions, it is difficult when one is in full knowledge of the situation to react in as measured or in as polite a way as one might do otherwise.
I think that Deputy Mac Giolla's misconception of the provisions of the pay agreement are genuine. The clauses he refers to relate entirely to what are known as other cost-increasing claims. If they are determined either by the Public Service arbitrator or by the Labour Court, there is provision for their being paid on a phased basis, that is, 40 per cent from October of this year, approximately half in December 1984 and the balance in September 1985. In relation to payment of what is known as the general round of the Public Service pay agreement, they do not fall into that category. The House is being asked to provide for the payment of the normal rounds of the 1981 Public Service Pay Agreement, restrospectively in the case of the Judiciary and from the begining of September in the case of Members of Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
Members may recall that some time ago a Member of the Seanad took action on the basis that the terms of the Oireachtas Members' pension scheme were discriminatory in that it provided for payment to widows of deceased Members while not taking adequate account of the changes in society whereby increasingly female Members are being elected to either House. While the scheme can be interpreted as applying to widowers, I wish to make the point that I intend, when this measure goes through, to take the opportunity to clarify the situation in relation to widowers within the Oireachtas pension scheme.
Question put and declared carried.
Section 5 and 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to make the point that this section is of a very technical nature and that it refers to an anomally that was created by the passage of a piece of legislation to set up the Office of the Minister of State in 1977. The anomaly leaves a very small category of members in an unfair position vis-á-vis the other categories. It was not spotted until sometime afterwards and the Members involved were not aware of being treated unfairly until the matter was brought to my attention by officials of the Department. I am taking the opportunity of this legislation to remedy the situation.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 8, 9 and 10 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Much has been said about the merits or otherwise of this legislation. I shall not go into that at this stage, especially since Deputy Bell has covered that ground adequately. However, on a point of information, I am not aware that a Dáil Deputy or his family are covered by a death-in-service provision until such time as he becomes eligible for a pension. As a trade union official I have negotiated death-in-service provisions in many pension schemes. In many companies in the private sector where there would not be a formal pension scheme as such in operation, the company will agree to introduce what is called a mortality or "death-in-service" benefit, the actuarial costs of which are minimal because our working lives are getting shorter. Most of us will remember that, when we started, the old age pension eligibility age was 70. It is now down to 66 and arguably will be reduced further in ensuing years to cope with the unemployment situation. On the other hand, our life expectancy is getting longer so that the actuarial possibility of somebody dying during their working life becomes less and less. Many insurance companies, when tendering for schemes, will give that part of a scheme for nothing to a company because it costs so little. I am speaking now of figures that may need some updating since 1981. My information is that, at that stage, somebody requiring to be insured by a company, and who was under the age of 30, could be covered for a premium of 75p per thousand pounds per annum. Therefore a worker in private industry under the age of 30, could have his or her family and dependants covered for £20,000 for a premium of approximately £15 per annum.
In spite of what has been said in the newspapers today possibly Dáil Deputies are subjected to more pressure than anybody else in this country. I am speaking now on my own behalf. I am quite prepared to have a job evaluation done of my work performance. A huge part of that is stress. As we know people have died from time to time rushing from one place to another, subject to all sorts of tensions. It is an inherent risk of the job. I am not complaning about that, I love the job and I would do it for half the wages.
——and we all love the Deputy.
The point I am making is that, in equity, our first obligation is to our families. If the position is that a Dáil Deputy is not covered for death in service until such time as his or her service would permit of entry into the full, formal pension scheme, there should be some provision whereby in natural justice, they would be covered for that contingency, this more especially as the custom is widespread throughout the public sector, is almost widespread throughout the private sector and certainly in any worthwhile employment. If there is such a deficiency — I am not sure that there is; I am posing the question — I would appeal to the Minister to remedy what would appear to be a very serious inequity. That kind of assurance and insurance for a Member's family is much more important than the salaries which have been the subject of this debate here today.
Deputy Prendergast raised a number of very important points. Any of us who serve on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges know that that is not the only anomaly obtaining in the pension scheme of Deputies. There are a considerable number of anomalies rendering that pension scheme must less attractive than those available to public servants at large.
The instance cited by the Deputy is one with which I am most familiar. Regrettably, since I became Chief Whip four or five of my colleagues have died in service and this question arose on each occasion. After such an event it is not a very pleasant task, on meeting a family in order to tie up arrangements, to discover and inform them that they are not covered at all. I think it is known generally in the House that when Deputy Clement Coughlan died tragically he was not covered at all under the pension scheme. Although he was here for a short time only, most of that time had been spent contesting three general elections and one by-election. Not only that, but his family did not even receive a refund of the contributions he had paid. That would not happen in any tuppence ha'penny job in the country; at least one would get back what one had paid in. The normal practice now in commercial and State employment is that, on death in service, at least one receives three or four times one's benefit. That is as a result of the negotiations conducted in numerous industries.
What happens with regard to Members of this House is that there is a private insurance company scheme, arranged by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, to whom Deputies pay their own money. It is not anything they get as a perquisite; they pay privately. Unfortunately that covers Members only for accidents, and a heart attack is not construed as an accident. In this job that is probably the most likely cause of death. Even if one is involved in an accident one must go through the post mortem saga to ensure that, even though one may have crashed one's car, one did not suffer a heart attack just beforehand. I endeavoured to point that out to my parliamentary party on a number of occasions so that Deputies might cover themselves against any such contingency.
Most people are under the impression that if TDs have served eight years they are then on full pension. The position is that they are eligible for 8/40ths of a non-index-linked pension after that period. I suppose every penny counts but it might be said that, in order to be worth anything, one would need to have served 12 years, after which time at least the pension is index-lined and would comprise, as at present constructed 12/40ths. In today's terms a 12-year survival period in this House would mean that one would probably have gone through six or seven elections——
That is all in the past.
I should like to think so.
The Constitution provides for elections only every seven years, does it not?
If an "in service" provision can be built into this or any amended pension scheme at least it would render it a fair one. I made the point this morning that at least we should be answerable to our families. While other people may talk about four and four-and-a-half day weeks, we are still endeavouring to reduce ours to a six-day week. The present position with regard to all serving Deputies of this House is that if one dies in service one's family is totally inadequately covered, whereas a civil servant or official of a semi-State body, or somebody in any private pension scheme, would be far better covered. The pension scheme we have at present is for accidents only and is of not great benefit to most of us.
The two Deputies who have spoken have raised what is a very fair and valid point. Indeed it is one which has been raised currently by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I gather that the provision for "death-in-service" in the Public Service generally is the payment of a sum equivalent to a year's salary. In the private sector there are a number of schemes in operation where the lump sum payment varies according to the terms of the scheme and the extent of the contribution of the people participating.
The Committee on Procedure and Privileges have reported recently in regard to this matter. I should like to feel that the representation from the Committee is a consensus view. Most Deputies have referred to a situation which a number of us will recall having happened over the years. I know that the Houses of the Oireachtas, through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, run a voluntary personal accident type insurance scheme under which Deputies and Senators have an option of taking out insurance cover on a group scheme basis, to cover themselves in the event of serious injury through accident or loss of life through accident. But there is not to my knowledge in operation any scheme which would allow Members participate in a "death-in-service" type payment or gratuity. It is one I would be more than happy to view sympathetically. There have been a number of instances over the years in which the sudden death of a Member has left his or her dependants in quite straitened circumstances.
It is strange to find that the definition of a Deputy's task here is not insurable employment. Those of us who are full-time politicians, with no other income, are precluded from contributing to the pay-related social insurance scheme, despite the desire of many of us to do so. Again this is somewhat contradictory to its presentation sometimes in the media. Consequently, we cannot provide on a contributory basis for our dependants and yet, if we survive long enough to qualify for pension provision through our own payments into the Members' contributory pension scheme, if we were to die a widow or widower would get a pension equivalent to half what the Members would be entitled to. That half pension would just about take them outside the income limit for the payment of social welfare assistance and they would not qualify for social welfare benefits because Members are precluded from making social welfare contributions on a contributory basis. In that respect the Members are in a catch 22 situation and I know many of them worry about it.
The normal Public Service provision is for the payment of the equivalent of a year's salary for death in service and I am disposed to looking sympathetically on amending the pension sheme as a result of the CPP representations and the remarks made by the two Deputies here, if at all possible. Deputy Ahern clarified the provisions of the pension scheme. Members do not qualify for pension payments until they have made eight years' contributions. The pension is not index-linked and a Members must serve for the substantial part of 12 years before the pension entitlement becomes index-linked. He moves on progressively in fortieths until ultimately a member could qualify for a payment of 27 fortieths after 27 year's service.
Despite what anybody says about any of us and despite any views which we might have about one another, if any Member manages in the future to last 27 years in this House or the other, or a combination of both, and to have contributed for those 27 years, he is fully entitled to the 27 fortieths at that stage.
Question put and agreed to.