Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Nov 1983

Vol. 345 No. 7

Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial, Parliamentary and Judicial Offices (Amendment) Bill, 1983: Second Stage.

Minister for the Public Service (Mr. Boland)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The question of the allowances to be paid to Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the salaries for Ministers and other parliamentary office holders is always a sensitive issue. It can be, and indeed in the past has been, a matter which has attracted critical comment which has not always been well founded. When the matter has to be debated in the Houses of the Oireachtas members may feel a sense of embarrassment in having to discuss publicly their own pay increases.

I hardly have any need to remind Deputies that their remuneration and, of course, that of Senators and Ministers and other parliamentary office holders, has not been adjusted since 1 June 1981 — nearly two-and-a-half years ago.

When the Review Body on Higher Remuneration submitted their report on 30 October 1979, as well as recommending levels of remuneration for those covered by this Bill, they dealt with the question of future reviews. At paragraph 14.5 the report states that "future reviews of remuneration for those covered by our terms of reference should take place at least every four years provided that the groups concerned receive all standard national agreements or other general round increases".

The Government at the time accepted the review body's recommendations on the appropriate level of remuneration and the adjustments were made, in respect of Members of the Oireachtas and the Judiciary, as from 26 June 1979 and 26 June 1980. Subsequently, the provisions of the 1980 national agreement on pay policy, as recommended, applied also. Successive Governments have not, however, applied the 1981 Public Service Pay Agreement, as amended, which provided for phased increases of 2 per cent, 6 per cent, and 5 per cent payable on 1 December 1981, 1 March 1982 and 1 January 1983. The effect of this has been to leave the remuneration of TDs. Senators and members of the Judiciary set at the level of the last phase of the 1980 Agreement on Pay Policy, that is at 1 June 1981 rates.

Parliamentarians, and judges, are the only review body groups whose remuneration is still at 1 June 1981 levels. Given that the review body were firmly of the opinion that the remuneration levels which they put forward in 1979 should have national pay round increases added, it is clearly undesirable that none of the three phases of the 1981 pay agreement have been implemented. In addition, since 1 September last, the first phase of the 1983 Public Service Pay Agreement has been payable to public service personnel, representing a further increase of 4.75 per cent.

The Bill, therefore, provides that the increases under the 1981 Public Service Pay Agreement (2 per cent, 6 per cent and 5 per cent) and the first phase of the 1983 Public Service Pay Agreement (4.75 per cent) will be applied with effect from 1 September 1983, to parliamentarians — and to the annual sums payable to leaders of certain parties in Dáil Éireann — and the Judiciary. The Bill also provides that in the future general pay rounds applied to the civil service will also automatically apply to Oireachtas members and to the Judiciary with effect from the appropriate dates. In this way the recommendation of the review body will, in the future, be met.

As regards the Judiciary, I do not think that there are any good grounds for treating them less favourably than the rest of the public service, and accordingly the Bill provides that the increases under the 1981 Public Service Pay Agreement and the first phase of the 1983 Public Service Pay Agreement will be applied in their case with retrospection to the due dates, that is, 2 per cent from December 1981, 6 per cent from 1 March 1982, 5 per cent from 1 October 1982, and 4.75 per cent from 1 September 1983.

In the case of the parliamentarians, however, the Government have decided that the 1981 Agreement increases will apply from 1 September 1983 without retrospection. As a result of this, TDs who served since the 1981 agreement came into effect will be at a permanent loss of £2,320 approximately, which is the amount by which their remuneration fell short during the period up to 31 August, 1983. In the light of the prevailing economic climate, Deputies will appreciate, I hope, the reasons which compelled the Government to decide against payment of retrospection for parliamentarians.

The failure to apply the 1981 agreement to parliamentarians is perhaps best illustrated by a comparison of the remuneration levels. Thus a TD who received — and still remains at — £13,802 per annum in 1981, would have moved progressively, on 1 December, 1981 to £14,078, to £14,923 at 1 March 1982, and to £15,669 from 1 January 1983 — this last phase to have actually been paid in January of this year, rather than October 1982, in accordance with the amendments to the 1981 agreement. Similarly a Senator, currently in receipt of £7,619, would have received increases bringing this remuneration to £7,828, £8,298, and £8,713 per annum on the respective dates. As from 1 September last, the appropriate levels for TDs and Senators, applying the first phase of the current public service pay agreement, would increase, by 4.75 per cent, to £16,413, and £9,127, respectively.

From the foregoing it will be seen that Deputies, in annual terms, are now in receipt of £2,611 less than is appropriate to maintain their remuneration level in line with movements throughout the public service. The proposed increases effective from 1 September 1983 do no more than rectify this situation.

It would be unfortunate were the provisions of this measure to be represented as a "Rise in TDs pay". Rather should they be seen for what they are — the extremely belated application of a number of public service pay agreement phases.

They should be viewed in the context of public servants generally having received and enjoyed the benefits of these phases progressively over the past two year period, as well as adjustments of this order having been granted in the private sector.

In addition, it may be remembered that twice last year, in February and November, general elections took place. This meant that Deputies, who had previously stood in the general election of June 1981, were invited to participate in two further electoral contests within eighteen months. Apart from the usual election expense, the fact that Members cease to receive their Oireachtas allowance from the date of dissolution until, and unless, they are re-elected, is often lost sight of.

Thus, a pre-December 1981 TD, who still survives, was at the loss of the equivalent of £864 approximately in allowance during the February 1982 election and £827 approximately in respect of the period of the contest in November of last year. These two figures, combined with that of £2,320 approximately, to which I referred earlier, means that a TD is now £4,011 approximately worse off than someone in the public service who had an income equal to his in November 1981 and who received the benefit of the general increases. Members who stood in the June 1981 election also, incidentally, lost a further £730 approximately through cessation of remuneration at that time.

It appears a rather pointless exercise if one establishes a review body, accepts their findings and recommendations and then, subsequently, fails to implement what is, after all, an integral part of such recommendations. Additionally, there does not appear to be a case for having the provisions of national or public service type agreements applied to all whom they were intended to cover and at the same time specifically to exclude the legislature for no good reason.

Apart from anything else, such inaction merely compounds the problem, from a presentational point of view, when steps have to be taken, as now, to correct the situation. Doubtless there will be many who will be in disagreement with what they perceive as a unilateral "increase in Oireachtas pay" although they themselves have benefited from precisely the same percentage increases — and had them paid upon the agreed dates, rather than, as will be the case in respect of one phase for the Deputies, two years later. It is for this reason that the Government have decided to amend the manner in which such pay agreements are applied to the members of the Oireachtas and the Judiciary.

Heretofore a cumbersome procedure has resulted in a situation where, literally, a period of months could — and did — elapse between the decision to implement a pay round and its actual payment. Firstly, there is required a Government decision, followed by the making of a statutory order which, in turn, must be laid before the House for 21 sitting days before taking effect. Should a recess intervene, or if the decision to initiate the procedure takes place during a recess, the process is even longer. It will be obvious, therefore, that without delay on the part of Government, a period of months may elapse before an ordinary phase, payable to all others, is actually paid to the Members of the House.

Indeed, on occasions in the past the delay has been such that the one single increase, whilst passing through this legislative conduit, has been reported or commented upon on a number of occasions to such an extent that the impression may have been created that there had, in fact, been a series of increases actually paid during the period.

In the future, therefore, and commencing with the enacting of this legislation and the current public service pay agreement, increases applying generally to the civil service will be applied automatically to members of the Oireachtas, to the annual sums payable to certain party leaders, and to the Judiciary with effect from the due date in each case.

In relation to any other changes in parliamentary remuneration, arising, for example, as a result of a review body inquiry, provision is being made so that, in future, an order having immediate effect could be made either increasing or decreasing such remuneration and such an order would be capable of being annulled by resolution of the Dáil within 21 sitting days but without prejudice on anything already done thereunder. In the case of the Judiciary the order will simply be presented to both Houses but would not, for constitutional reasons, be capable of annulment.

I referred earlier to the situation whereby members of the Dáil cease to qualify for allowance as from the date of dissolution of the Dáil to which they were elected. Qualification for resumption of payment does not occur until, and unless, they are re-elected to the subsequent Dáil.

This in effect means that a TD is without remuneration for a period of approximately three weeks whenever a general election takes place. During a period of instability such as took place during 1981 and last year this can represent quite a burden for members — and especially those who are full-time TDs.

It is interesting to note that the three general elections of 1981 and 1982 meant a loss of income, for those Deputies of the 20th Dáil who have survived to the 24th, of £2,420 — or over two months' remuneration during the 18 months from June 1981 to November 1982. This represents a sizeable set-back by any standard.

Curiously the same situation does not exist in relation to the Seanad. There, a member remains so, despite the calling and holding of a Seanad general election, until the day before polling day. If re-elected he continues, therefore, without break in service. This matter was considered by the Review Body in 1979, who reported at paragraph 12.18 as follows:

The members of a Dáil cease to be TDs on its dissolution and an outgoing TD who is seeking re-election has exactly the same constitutional and statutory rights as any other candidate. However, in view of the fact that the Dáil may be, and normally is, dissolved without notice and the financial hardship which the abrupt cessation of a TD's allowance can cause, and having regard to the arrangements applying to Senators, we consider that the question of continuing payment of TD's allowances up to the date before polling day for the new Dáil might be reviewed in the context of the consideration which might be given to severance payments. Such a course could also avoid the situation where a TD would fail to qualify for pension because this period is not taken into account in determining eligibility.

Accordingly, the Government have decided to provide that a sum equivalent to one-eighteenth of annual allowance shall be payable to a Deputy on dissolution of a Dáil and arrangements will also be made to include the period of dissolution as reckonable for pension purposes.

The Review Body states at paragraph 12.13 that

"the minimum qualifying period of eight years does seem harsh in the case of a TD who fails to qualify for a pension because the period between dissolution of the Dáil and polling day, for which he is not paid, is not taken into account".

The case was made, by Deputies and Senators, to the Review Body, that some form of severance payment might be made to a member who retired, or was defeated, at a general election. According to the Report of the Review Body the submission stated that:

TDs were working on short-term contracts, terminable without notice and renewable only with the assent of the electorate, and that a TD had no security of tenure. The submission pointed out that since membership of Dáil Éireann was not considered an insurable employment, defeated or retiring TDs were not normally eligible for unemployment benefit or assistance and did not receive redundancy payments. Because of the abrupt termination of the parliamentary allowance on the dissolution of the Dáil and the demands in terms of time and expenses of contesting a general election, the submission said that the outgoing member of the Dáil and, in particular, the full-time member, had little opportunity to make arrangements for alternative employment. The submission argued that the introduction of severance arrangements would help alleviate the financial hardship caused by the abrupt termination of parliamentary income following the dissolution of the Dáil and the defeat or retirement of a member. It would help the outgoing member in the period between his defeat/retirement and his obtaining alternative employment, which might be a considerable period in some cases. A severance grant might, it was suggested, be considered an occupational redundancy scheme or a scheme for payment in lieu of notice.

The Review Body pointed out at paragraph 12.15 that this question did not come within their terms of reference but continued:

We would say, however, that we have some sympathy with the views expressed and consider that the possibility of introducing some form of severance grants for defeated deputies might be examined. Deputies who retire voluntarily would seem to be in a different position.

The Government have examined this matter but have concluded that, as the prime purpose of this legislation is to restore members to their June 1981 position relatively speaking, rather than materially improving their conditions vis-á-vis other groups, and because of the complex nature of determining qualification, and so on, no provision should be made for payment of a severance grant.

In conjunction with other, though unrelated, changes of a minor nature which I intend to make to the members' pension scheme, following the passing of this Bill, I shall amend the provision whereby members qualify for pension based on one-fortieth for each year of service. In future there will be an optional situation whereby a defeated or retiring member, who has served the requisite eight qualifying years, may decide to draw pension on that basis or, alternatively, to choose a lump sum, calculated actuarially, together with reduced pension payments based on three-one hundred and sixtieths for each year of service.

Whilst not involving the State in any additional cost, this will allow an ex-member, who is, for example, without any other occupation, the opportunity to utilise the lump sum whilst endeavouring to seek alternative employment. I also intend modifying the pension scheme to allow those of short service, and who are not qualified for pension, to have their own pension contributions refunded to them as is common in most other schemes.

This matter was also referred to by the Devlin Review Body which stated, at paragraph 12.13.

Another feature of the present arrangements which does not seem entirely fair is that members who fail to qualify for a pension forfeit their contributions.

As mentioned, the Review Body referred to superannuation matters and pointed out, in paragraph 12.20, that they were taking the 6 per cent contribution payable by members into account "in considering the appropriate level of allowance".

They continued in this paragraph to state:

If changes were to be made in relation to the refund of contributions where members fail to qualify for pensions, severance grants and the continuance of payment of TDs' allowances beyond the date of dissolution of a Dáil, these would have to be part of an overall package, and improvements in benefits on these lines would require corresponding modifications elsewhere in existing arrangements.

I shall deal with two of these three matters, as I have already stated, and it would be my intention that these modifications, and members' conditions generally, would be considered by the body when next a general review similar to that undertaken and reported on in 1979 takes place. It is interesting to reflect upon the observations of the Review Body, at paragraph 12.70, regarding the other occupations of TDs. It should be mentioned that the survey referred to was taken in 1978. Paragraph 12.70 states:

Our questionnaire also sought information on how many TDs had other occupations. Of the 82 TDs who replied to this question, 6 were continuing with their ordinary jobs on a full-time basis and 39 were continuing with their ordinary jobs on a part-time basis. A further 4 had engaged part-time on new jobs but 1 of these had subsequently relinquished his. Thus 34 (41%) of 82 TDs indicate that they were full-time TDs with no other occupation. While this remains a minority it is a substantial increase in the number of full-time TDs since 1972 when our survey showed that only 15 (18%) out of 84 TDs who replied were full-time TDs with no other occupation. It must also be noted that only a handful of TDs have continued their normal occupations on a full-time basis. We return in our assessment to these points and to the whole question of whether the job of TD should be regarded, for the purposes of remuneration, as a full-time one.

In the assessment, at paragraphs 12.83, and 12.84 the Review Body stated:

We concluded in 1972 that the hours of work which the typical TD devotes to his official duties are such as to warrant near comparison with other full-time occupations. The replies to our surveys on this occasion showed an increase in the time devoted by the average TD to his duties as a TD and a significant increase in the number of full-time TDs with no other occupation. It must also be borne in mind that many of those who have maintained other occupations, either on a full-time or part-time basis, have had to employ extra assistance in their normal business or profession in view of their position as TDs.

It seems to us to be of limited meaning today to speak of full-time or part-time when speaking of the job of TD. The job is unique in its role, responsibilities, work and conditions. In a democratic system such as ours the salary of a TD should be high enough to provide a reasonable livelihood for those who choose to devote themselves full-time to their work as TDs and who may not have alternative sources of income. On the other hand we acknowledge that the majority of TDs have some other occupation, mostly on a part-time basis. It is likely that no matter how high the parliamentary allowance is a large proportion of TDs will continue to have other sources of income. The insecurity of the job of TD makes this inevitable.

While I am not aware of any recent similar survey having been carried out I am nevertheless satisfied that the increasing complexity and demands have resulted in a situation where at least as high a level of TDs today (41 per cent) as that shown in 1978, operate on a full-time basis.

It is, I think, good that this should be so. We need committed, dedicated Members in the service of the Parliament and the nation and we have, consequently, an obligation to ensure that they are provided with, as the review body states, a "reasonable livelihood".

All that the main provisions of this Bill set out to do is to restore Members to the level which the review body recommended they should be at, and maintained at, through application of wage agreements. Doubtless there will be those who will relish the opportunity to describe this measure as "another example of the politicians looking after themselves".

That, in fact, is not the case. Indeed the main reason necessitating this Bill is that Governments have not properly provided for the parliamentarians over the past two years and have allowed their situation to deteriorate to a marked degree.

Already the current public service pay agreement applied from 1 September last and, consequently, the Government were faced with, again belatedly, tabling an order requiring 21 sitting days before the increase could be paid to pay parliamentarians or, alternatively, dealing with the situation in a reasonable and yet realistic way. This I hope we have done by granting the terms of the 1981 agreement and the first phase of this public service pay agreement to take effect only from September last.

Thus Members' remuneration is restored to the level recommended by the Devlin Review but without retrospection, which leaves them at a permanent loss of £2,320 in retrospection vis-á-vis comparable public service income earners. This is apart from the further loss arising from the non-payment of the parliamentary allowance between the dates of dissolution and polling.

I have no doubt whatsoever that were there to be an agreed general pay standstill for a defined period, Members here would be quick to support its application in their own case. In a situation, however, where all around them have got increases progressively over the past two years, with inevitable consequences for living costs and prices, it must surely be both unfair and unrealistic to expect Oireachtas Members alone to stand still.

There is an obligation upon those of us entrusted with the operation of a democracy to ensure that the democratic system is able to work. In a curious way, should we see fit to shirk from providing for what we know is a fair and just and reasonable payment to any Member doing his or her job, and to single out parliamentarians alone as the group who should not be allowed increases applicable to the rest of society, and whose application to parliamentarians has already been recommended by an independent review body, then we are doing both Parliament and democracy itself a disservice.

If we allow a situation to develop where only those of independent and substantial means can afford to last as Members of our Parliament, where this Chamber becomes, as it might have tended to before, a rich man's debating club, then the will and application to tackle the demanding, and increasingly complex, pressures of society, will neither be reflected nor present in the forum.

I believe that any fair-minded and dispassionate observer will see this measure for what it is, the application to parliamentarians, without retrospection, and to the Judiciary of general public service pay increases, long ago granted to, enjoyed — and spent — by others in the public service, and the introduction of automatic payment to Members of such general increases in the future, and that they will agree with me in commending the Bill to the House.

The opportunity is also being taken to effect certain other changes, basically of a minor nature, and which I will be happy to explain more fully on Committee Stage.

These include provision to allow changes to the Members pension scheme by ministerial amending scheme, provision that the posts of Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach of the Seanad be made pensionable, provision for amending the conditions for regarding the post of Attorney General as pensionable, and provision for removal of an anomaly in the pension terms of certain former Parliamentary Secretaries which was unintentionally caused by the pension provisions for Ministers of State in the 1977 Act. The amendments of the Members' pension scheme referred to earlier in this speech will be introduced by way of an amending scheme under the new procedure, together with provision for transferability of service between the pension scheme and the scheme for Members of the European Parliament.

Whilst they do not form part of the specific provisions of this Bill, nevertheless I think I should tell the House that it is also the intention of the Government, in conjunction with the passing of the Bill, to update Members' travelling, overnight and day allowances. These rates have not been increased since January 1980 and have clearly fallen through the floor of any basket of comparables. For the future Members who qualify will be paid the same mileage rates as are, for the time being, allowed to civil servants. The present overnight allowance of £17.50 for those Members who are obliged to stay in Dublin whilst the Houses are in session is to be revised to £27.50 and the day allowance, payable to those Members who reside within 10 miles of the House, from £10 to £16. It should be pointed out that this was the level of increase which was deemed to be appropriate nearly a year ago. It is intended that, in the future, these figures will be adjusted by reference to civil service mileage and subsistence rates.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Cooney

Where is the Opposition spokesman on Finance?

Mr. B. Ahern

As Chief Whip of the main Opposition Party, as the Deputy who leads at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on matters relating to Deputies, as spokesman on numerous occasions on Dáil reform in recent debates and anything that relates to Members' salaries, expenses, allowances, changes in procedures in the House, and as Opposition Leader of the House, I think I am the spokesman on this area.

All Members of my party and the Members of the Committee on Procedures and Privileges have been deeply concerned for a considerable time about the serious financial situation facing many of our Members. This applies to all Members of the House, but I have been particularly familiar with the circumstances of the Members of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party.

This deterioration in the financial position of many Deputies has been a gradual process over recent years due to the fact that no increase in allowances has been granted to them since the last stage of the twelfth round agreement in June 1981, and because, as the Minister outlined very clearly, there have been three general elections where Members have lost almost three months's salaries, and numerous by-elections, which Deputies pay out of their own pockets. This has caused severe hardship for many Deputies and their families. That point seems to be missed by many people outside this House, but when one is Chief Whip one realises just how true that is. I am afraid this is a point about which we will not convince many people outside, but it is a fact, and there is no point arguing the rights and wrongs of the situation.

The situation was clearly an intolerable one and could not be permitted to continue indefinitely if the most serious consequences for the proper functioning of a parliamentary democracy is to be avoided. It is no secret that several Deputies in the past were forced out of public life because they could no longer tolerate the hardship and strain involved for themselves and their families due to the inadequacy of the allowances payable. It has been only too clear that many others would be forced to adopt a similar course in the near future if remedial action had not been taken. On behalf of the parliamentary party, on numerous occasions I went to the last Minister for Finance and this Minister and brought these facts before him. These were facts I could stand over if I was asked to do so. I am sure a number of my colleagues here this morning could outline that point further, but I do not think it would be accepted by those outside. The low salaries and expenses which we have been paid since 1979 are totally out of line and are imposing an intolerable burden on many Members of this House, in particular those Members from rural areas who have to drive many miles and are not even paid mileage at the rates paid to the public service, local authorities or health boards. Those figures are available for comparison and the mileage figures can be verified, if necessary.

On behalf of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges I should like to make it clear for the record that we wore a path to the office of the Minister about the case. That committee are representative of the three major parties and one Independent Member. There was unanimous agreement at the committee with the proposals contained in the Bill. It can be taken that agreement is on an all-party basis. We did not receive any submissions from anybody else with an alternative view. We did not receive submissions from anybody disagreeing with the issues we were trying to raise with the Minister. All Members were aware of the delegations and representations made to the Minister.

The harsh reality had to be faced that remedial action would have to be taken if Parliament was not to become a richman's club where, as the Minister said, those who would aspire to public service would be excluded because they had not available to them the private means to enable them to do so. Some people may wish Parliament to become such an institution. They may wish only to have those with good salaries from other sources, big businesses and secretaries inside and outside Parliament, who are able to travel extensively, or are able to attend party functions and be paid for attending them from their own business. If that is the wish of the people, Parliament can become such an institution very quickly. In that event the Bill can be rejected as well as all future increases, but I should like to state that in that event, like a considerable number of Members, I will not be here.

Most of us who left our jobs in 1977 or 1981 to become Members of this House would be getting more money, working shorter hours and would not have to ask for more money if we had remained outside. It is reasonable to ask that the rate of pay we got and accepted when we came into this job should be kept in line with thousands of employees in local authorities, the public service and semi-State companies. That is all we are seeking in this agreement and is all that is contained in the legislation. Those who feel we are getting anything more should put their case forward, but they have not done so in any of the articles I read in recent days. They are missing the point that all Members are receiving is the rate of pay we were getting when we accepted the job initially.

Another proposal is that national wage agreements will be applied to Members on day one. We will lose the retrospection which everybody else received and that was agreed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. However, we asked that we be brought into line at this stage and kept in line. There is no question of any provisions of the Devlin Report, no review of the salaries, upgrading of the position or regarding of the post. The matter we are concerned with is purely the granting of the percentage increases of recent national pay agreement which all employees in the public service have been granted in the last two and a half years.

Members are now spending more time on this work than they did when I was first elected in 1977. We have been asked to get people more involved in the legislative process, to get Members to attend meetings of all-party committees, and that has been done. In the last three years the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in trying to achieve those objectives have appointed many parliamentary committees and done away with the long summer holidays. Deputy Taylor, the Chief Whip of the Labour Party, the Government Chief Whip, Minister Barrett, and myself had our last meeting here at the end of July and we returned at the end of August. Such things go unnoticed. We have heard it said that there would be no objection to the salary increases if the House was seen to be more active. We were told that if we reformed the procedures of the House people would change their mind, but having done all those things the response is still the same. I have no doubt that in 20 years' time it will be the same.

I commend the Minister for having the political will to take a difficult decision, to introduce legislation which may not be popular. I do not see this as throwing anything in the faces of the huge numbers who are unemployed or on social welfare benefits. We understand their position. We are not saying that we can look after ourselves and we will not look after such people. With the greatest of respect, I view this as a different issue. People who work in the House, parliamentarians, are also entitled to their pound of flesh. We are only asking for the same amount everybody else got a long time ago. I do not think it is an undue amount. The Minister is doing something which is publicly unpopular but is realistic and of benefit to democracy. I question the view of democracy of those who do not see it that way. Many Members from our party wish to contribute on this issue and I have no doubt that, if as Chief Whip I asked them to contribute, they would be willing to offer; but in this case I will ask some backbenchers to give their views. I should like to assure the Minister that he has the whole-hearted support of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party. There is no question about that. It was stated that we had a meeting today but I do not know of any meeting that took place. It is Fianna Fáil policy to achieve what is in the legislation. Without any reservations I commend the Minister for bringing forward the legislation and we give it our absolute support.

Mr. Kelly

I should like to support the general principle of the Bill and express agreement with everything said by the Minister and Deputy Ahern. I wish to make a point at the conclusion of my contribution which was not dealt with by other speakers, but I do not want it to be interpreted as disagreeing with the need for proper payment for Members whose work is very often — almost always — misunderstood and misinterpreted by the public and the press. The simplest form that misconception takes — I will begin with the crudest of them — is the idea that the only work of a Member takes place when the Dáil is in session. For many Deputies the reverse is the case. Some rural Deputies I have spoken to from both sides of the House have said jocularly that the only time in the week when they get some rest is when they travel to Dublin, have three days when at least they can be sure that when they go to their hotel room they will be able to get eight hours' sleep and will not have perpetual disturbance of their family lives and their own lives at hours which they cannot manage or predict. The real grinding work of most Members, certainly most rural Deputies, takes place at home, and not during Dáil sitting hours. It takes place during hours when the House is not sitting and when they are in their constituencies between Thursday evening and Tuesday morning.

The idea that the long recess in the summer is in some way a holiday for Deputies is absolute moonshine. I am amazed that the press should perpetuate that, as they sometimes do, when they have members in their press lobby who can see what goes on here and know that the business brought up at Question Time, or in some other context, by Deputies is not thought up on the spur of the moment on the train to Dublin, but reflects the grinding drudgery they put in because their constituents want it of them during the rest of the time. The vulgarity and ignorance of this point of view about the holidays of Deputies is, I am sorry to say, not corrected by the press. We have all seen cartoons of a couple of Deputies — their facial characteristics about as hateful as could be contrived within the parameters of what is possible in a Hibernian countenance — on the beach on the Costa Brava with their trouser bottoms rolled up, paddling in the wavelets, and their suitcases behind them marked "TD", with some cynical remark passing from one to the other about it being "great to have three months of this ahead of us, Mick." That is a bit of a laugh, but it is a grotesque misrepresentation of the reality of life for most Deputies, certainly for most rural Deputies.

I must admit that my own existence is nothing like as tough, and I do not get the same demands made on me, for geographical reasons and other reasons, but many of my colleagues do. I have seen the demands made of them; and the patience with which people who do this job for whatever motive — sometimes the motive may not be very respectable — bear misrepresentation and lampooning of that type is admirable. I should like to protest about the ignorant idea that the only work done by people elected to Dáil Éireann is during the sitting hours of the House. It is done from one end of the week to the other and in hours that nobody else would tolerate, with the exception of a priest or a doctor.

That leaves out of account the office-holders — I think there are too many office-holders — who number 30, not counting the Attorney General who is not a Member of the House. They do not get three months' holidays. They do not have free weekends; they have to look after their constituents and attend to their Departments and to a back-breaking round of Government meetings. At certain times of the year, such as when Estimates are being discussed, they have to work hours that would kill a horse. Office-holders have not got to that level of office merely to make money: I do not think anyone has made money out of politics, certainly not regularly. The burden that office-holders bear is a very heavy one and I say that about both sides of the House, and to include them in the general jibe about free weekends and long holidays is outrageous. I do not blame some simple person who has never had an opportunity of seeing how matters work here; but the press, who are good in general about enlightening people on matters that otherwise would remain closed to them, are not good about correcting the balance in this regard.

The Minister and Deputy Ahern might have said more about the expenses many Deputies have to bear. I do not carry as much in the way of expenses as do many of my colleagues. Deputy Ahern mentioned by-elections. I do not think the public realise what happens during a by-election. Personally I think the system could be looked at; I do not think it is necessarily a vital exercise in democracy that whenever a Deputy dies or resigns instantly all work should be suspended here, most work suspended in the Government, and every Deputy and Senator should have to down tools in his own constituency and go to some remote part of the country. They should not have to spend three long weekends fighting a by-election. We might reasonably look to see if casual vacancies in this House might be filled in some other way. The Constitution does not prescribe that casual vacancies must be filled by by-elections. I could think of other ways of doing that that would be less disruptive to public business, and less exhausting and exacting on the people who, by convention, take part in by-elections.

The expense of by-elections, which Deputy Ahern mentioned briefly, is something the public do not understand at all. Many Deputies who take their party's work seriously put nearly as much of their own money into a by-election campaign in a distant constituency as they would into an election in their own constituency. The last country by-election in which I took part — I did not play as extensive a role as did many of my colleagues — was in east Galway in the summer of last year. I do not think I had any change out of £300 or £400 after spending a few weekends in Galway; and many of my colleagues put far more work into the by-election. That is the same as writing off nearly £1,000 gross from their salary for one by-election that is over and forgotten in three weeks.

Neither the Minister nor Deputy Ahern mentioned the private telephone accounts the country and city Deputies have to pay. I am not making a complaint on my own account; most of my own telephone calls are in the city, and I do a great part of my work in here anyway. However, once country Deputies go home on Thursday they have to pay their own telephone bills. I remember one of my colleagues, now a Minister, who lives in a distant constituency telling me in 1978 or 1979 — and the matter is much worse now — that his telephone bill was roughly £400 per quarter. That Deputy will not get any allowance from the State for that. It is part of the expenses for which the tax-free element of his salary is supposed to compensate. The notion that these expenses are trivial, or that Deputies do not have to pay them out of their own pocket is quite wrong.

Entertainment is a subject on which one could be facetious, and for that reason I will not spend any time on it. Entertainment, whether in the constituency or in Leinster House, is a not inconsiderable item. I am probably one of the Deputies least hit by this. However, many country Deputies receive deputations here. I can see them bringing in such deputations into the restaurant and paying for a meal for five, six or seven people out of their own pockets. Such is the admittedly rather lovable Irish characteristic, which despises meanness and which admires generosity, that a Deputy would be regarded as a gortachán if he did not put his hand in his pocket.

In the same way every public representative is the first target for charitable appeals, not just in his own constituency but throughout the country. Everyone has to subscribe to charity; no one should belittle charities, or say anything that would discourage the enormous amount of voluntary effort that goes into organising them. It is a dreadful drudgery for private charities to try to raise funds. I have no doubt it goes much against their grain to have to seek subscriptions; but it has now become the fashion that the first person they turn to is their elected representative. Some of them are quite shameless about it — Saint Francis may have been shameless in collecting alms for the friars mendicant for a good purpose. I do not make these remarks in a critical sense. I say this as I might have said it over a mendicant friar or nun. It cannot be denied that charities are shameless in intensifying the level of appeals, particularly at election times, with the hidden suggestion that the news that the public representative involved has failed to respond to the appeal will not remain private. I wish to repeat again that this is not intended as an attack on charities, far from it; I support them and I agree they have to be shameless in their approach. I am merely pointing out that in this way of conducting their affairs Deputies are in the front rank as their target.

Country Deputies get an allowance for travelling to Dublin. I am in a favoured situation because I can walk to Leinster House and I usually do that when the weather is fine. In fact, if I wanted to I could almost walk from one end of my constituency to the other without much difficulty. However, there are several country Deputies whose constituencies are nearly 100 miles in length and they have to travel through that area at their own expense. That is not an inconsiderable item with a car that might do from 28 miles to 32 miles to the gallon when one considers all the stopping and starting of the vehicle that would be necessary. Many Deputies write off their car after a year. I have been able to observe they are not the most careful drivers in Ireland. Many of them change their car once a year because they have driven the guts out of the first car. That money must come from their own pockets.

Country Deputies are obliged to advertise in the local press their availability in their clinics to constituents and that cannot be done for nothing. I was speaking to a Deputy yesterday who said that his bill for inserting a couple of small advertisements in two local papers stating where he would be on a certain day in the month comes to about £30 or £40 per week. That is £2,000 a year before he starts to feed his family, to pay for his petrol, to treat his constituents and to fight by-elections.

The Minister dealt with this matter with dignity, and so did Deputy Ahern, and I do not want to be dramatising the thing because we are living in times when many people would be very glad to be able even to muddle along in the way Deputies do.

Deputies who rely completely or largely on a Dáil salary must get this increase. Indeed I would have supported a somewhat larger increase. Deputies who rely solely on their Dáil salaries cannot do their jobs properly with less than this increase, unless they cut corners with either their constitutents or their families. This morning I overheard a radio report of the statement of the Comptroller and Auditor General in which he said that he had discovered a couple of instances of persons in the Public Service who in one year made, in overtime alone, more than a Deputy's salary will now be.

The press, who provide a platform for the public, have been opening their reports by referring to a "flood of rage" which has swept the country and with "anger spreading last night" as the news spread. You would swear the newspapers' telephones were choked up with angry calls; whereas, more probably, they may just have been having a word or two with one another. "Anger may have been spreading" last night among student leaders who may have been telephoning in to say, "My people are fit to be tied". That is far from being a wave of anger among the people of the country. I do not intend to fall out with the press or anything like that, I depend on them the same as anybody else, but in so far as Deputies who are full-time TDs are concerned, this increase is the least that could have been given.

I do not know what the figures are in relation to part-time and whole-time Deputies. We are all whole-time in the sense that nobody would accept from us, nor would we offer as an excuse for not doing our job as Deputies, that we have other occupations. A man who may have a business, or another job as I have, or a farm, will never offer as an excuse to his colleagues or his constituents that he has some other interests.

Nevertheless, the fact is, and it cannot be denied, that some Deputies — I will not put a figure on it — have other sources of income. The Minister dealt with this matter very fairly. I do not know about the private affairs of most of my own colleagues on this side, never mind on the other side of the House, but there are people here who have other sources of income. I am one of them. This is certainly a ground for public annoyance at a time like this; I will not become rhetorical about it or overstate it but I think the public who hear appeals being made on all sides for moderation, and who expect leadership and example from the top, have a point in this instance, but only in this instance. They have a case in respect of Members who do not need the extra money.

I do not know how many there may be. If I put a figure on it it would be only a flying guess. Rather than involve the whole body of Deputies and Senators in odium which ought to be directed only towards this single area, it would be wise for the Government to consider if there is some way of showing recognition of the fact that some people here will be getting money which they do not need out of the public pocket — in other words, money provided by the taxpayers — and that therefore the level of benefits to social welfare recipients and others will be diminished because of the contribution of more money towards people who do not require it.

I do not think there could be any such thing as paying differential salaries. I am not recommending that people here should be paid according to their needs — if everyone here is doing the same job he or she should be given the same at the payment end. If some of them are doing it badly the constituents will no doubt take it out on them later on. But it could be deducted back again at the tax end; and therefore I should like to see the Government consider putting right the only thing that needs to be put right as far as this is concerned, by means of what I will not call a "penal" level of tax — because "penal" suggests that somebody has done something wrong, and nobody has done anything wrong in this regard — but we might have a particular heavy system of tax on Oireachtas allowances, so that people who move with their general income into a very high tax band, people paying 65p in the £ on the upper part of their incomes, might pay, on the increased Oireachtas allowances part, 80p or 85p. There could be some debate about that.

It is a pity that this measure, which is fully justified and which does not even go as far as could be justified in respect of many Members, should drive the Government and the Legislature on the defensive publicly, and that they should be lambasted in the public prints because of this one area in respect of which criticism can fairly be made. There should be some alteration of the tax structure which would effectively claw back most of the increase given to Deputies whose other situation is such that they do not need it. That would be justifiable, and it would completely deprive the critics and the leader-writers of their ground for complaint.

There are other matters which I will not go into now, but which would stand scrutiny, such as the practice which, I am sorry to say, the Minister yesterday inadequately defended in a few words in reply to Deputy Mac Giolla. I refer to ministerial pensions, tiny though they are, paid to people who are still Members of the House. That system could be looked at, and I do not think it is unreasonable for the public to complain about it. I get a small ministerial pension. It is so small that it is not worth having to carry that much odium for receiving it — I would prefer to do without it and be clear of the odium. I do not think there are many other ex-office holders sitting on the back benches on this side, but I suppose there are a few on the other side. That would bear examination, and I think this would clear up these marginal dimensions of the whole delicate problem of paying ourselves salary increases. It would then be possible to defend with a whole heart everything the Minister is doing, or something that might have gone a good deal further.

Mr. Briscoe

The last speaker made the case very well but, unfortunately, as the Deputy will know, the last part of his speech will be the part most quoted in the newspapers tomorrow.

Mr. Kelly

I hope that will not be the case. It was not so intended.

Mr. Briscoe

I know it was not intended, but that is the way it will work. I compliment the Minister on having the courage to introduce the Bill. Fianna Fáil are unanimously in favour of it and fully support it. In fairness to the political correspondents, everyone here will agree that not one of them has knocked this increase, to my knowledge. The members of the press who have been knocking it are outside the political arena and therefore do not know very much about what TDs do. I refer to those gentlemen who write under the cloak of anonymity, those who write leading articles. I am quite satisfied that none of them is working for less than £20,000 or more, perhaps a lot more, many of whom also get substantial expenses. Their cries of horror, as Deputy Kelly stated, do not in any way reflect the feelings of the public. I have not had any bad vibes from members of the public. I am one of the ever-increasing number of full-time Deputies. It is not just I who am penalised in carrying out my duties as a conscientious TD but my family as well, as had been stated.

Deputy Kelly referred to a number of the items which I have down on my list. Phone bills was one of them. There is also the number of dinners one has to go to. A few weeks ago there was a dinner in my constituency which we had to go to. When you take your wife it is £24 for two tickets. When you get there you have to buy a bottle of wine for the table or whatever other people are having. There is also the large number of raffles which we have to subscribe to. We could all show books of raffle tickets which we have been asked to buy and sell. Very often we come up to one another and say: "I will buy one of your raffle tickets if you will buy one of mine".

Some of the TDs who lose their seats and decide not to go forward for the Seanad have to wait until the Seanad has been elected, which is usually three months after the election has been called. I am delighted that at last we are to be paid in between elections, between the day the Dáil is dissolved and the day the new Parliament is elected. Normally we did not receive any money during that period. We are now doing exactly what they do in the UK. I understand that the parliamentarians there receive their allowances until the day the new Parliament is elected. I feel that a man who has no other income except his Dáil salary and allowance suffered a great hardship in having to wait three months for any money. Apparently in the likelihood that he is going to the Seanad he will not get any pension until the new Seanad election. If such a person is a candidate for the Seanad and does not get elected he does not get his pension. Perhaps the Minister would have a look at that. As far as I am concerned I will never go for the Seanad, because it is a most arduous campaign. I have seen many Deputies who lost their seats in the last election having to wait three months for their pensions. Due to the kindness of their bank managers those people were able to survive until their bank money and their pensions came through.

The Dáil salary in 1982, because of the two elections, was just a little in excess of £11,000. In 1981, because there was only one election, we got £12,000. We did not receive any pay between the time the Dáil was dissolved and the new Dáil elected.

The Minister has outlined in his speech exactly what the loss was to Members of this House because of elections. I have contested elections since 1965, which means there have been about six elections. That means 18 weeks without any income if all the periods between elections were taken togethere. We also have to take into account that the time between elections is not allowed for pension purposes. During the time I have been a Member of this House there are approximately 18 weeks which are not allowed for pension purposes even though I was elected each time. I would like the Minister to look into that.

This kind of Bill causes a great outcry when it comes before the House. Parliamentarians are very often reluctant to bring in this type of legislation because of that outcry. I congratulate the Minister for doing away with the 21 day period so that now we will get our money immediately. As everybody knows, because up to this we had to wait for 21 sitting days of the Dáil before we got anything, there was an outcry on two occasions. When other people got increases they got them as they were announced. There was usually a lot of talk when it was announced that we were being brought in line with public servants in relation to increase, but then after 21 sitting days when it was announced that the Dáil Deputies were getting their increases people got the impression that we were getting a second increase. That is the type of the nonsense we had to put up with.

Most of the work of TDs is conducted in their constituencies. I have my clinics on Saturday and Sunday. I am very frequently in my constituency particullarly during the summer months when there are all sorts of community projects. If you get a Sunday off with your family during the months of June and July you are doing very well. I am sure the Leas-Cheann Comhairle finds this is also the case in his constituency. My constituency is a huge one, a quarter of the physical size of Dublin, so I have a lot of ground to cover.

The Taoiseach is the chief executive of the country and is responsible for a budget of maybe £6 billion. I do not begrudge the Taoiseach or his Minister the salaries which they get, which are fully taxed, for the amount of work they do and the responsibilities they have. If we want to attract into politics people who will not be mediocre and we want to attract people with talent we will have to pay for this. We will not get people who have responsibilities to their families, to just come in here and give up lucrative positions. Deputy Kelly spoke about people who have businesses. How many Members of this House had good businesses when they came in here and when they left politics, either because they lost their seats or decided to retire, found their business were gone? There are many Members of this House who are doctors who have to engage locums during their time in this House and virtually spend their total Dáil allowance in paying for locums.

The fact is, no matter what we say here today, there will be sections of the media who will criticise us for the new allowances which we will receive. I exclude from that the political correspondents and those who have witnessed the proceedings of this House for many years in the Press Gallery, because they know the difficulties many TDs had in surviving over the years. There were no leading articles in the papers praising the TDs when the brave gesture was made to forego the last 13 per cent which everybody got. There was no leading article saying that the TDs were giving great example. No leading article said: "Are they not a fine body of men and women in there who are prepared to forego that increase." That is the spirit we want in the country. The attitude of many people was if the TDs did not award the increase to themselves they were fools, and also they did not need it in the first place.

I am very relieved that we are getting this allowance immediately, because many Deputies who love what they do have had to think very seriously about whether they could go on. I have a young family aged 15, 14, 10 and 5 years. I am coming up to a very expensive time, and on £13,800 plus the travelling allowance it has been very difficult. Most Deputies in the same position are using their allowances to pay for school fees and clothing, so it is not very easy. There are very few people interested in that aspect of the matter. They feel we have to live with it. I remember Jack Lynch saying there was never a right time for giving a TD an increase and there never will be.

The point has been made by the Minister that if we do not give those new allowances now democracy is in danger. Are we only going to have, as Deputy Ahern said, a rich man's club? Are we only going to have a Dáil where only people with other occupations can afford to come in here? The full-time TDs are very dedicated to their work and they know that to survive as Members of this House they have to give everything they have to their jobs. I welcome this Bill. I hope there was no misunderstanding about where our party stood in relation to the introduction of the Bill. We fully support it. I am on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges with the Minister and he knows my feelings and those of the members of my party on it.

Mr. W. O'Brien

I wish to congratulate the Minister on bringing in this measure. As a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges I can say that at meetings of that committee during the past six months we have not lost an opportunity to raise the matter of an increase in the remuneration of Deputies and Senators. We did so not because we were being pressured by people who merely wanted more money to spend but because we were being pressured by Members of both Houses who simply could no longer exist on the current levels of salary.

In rural Ireland particularly many Deputies and Senators have been forced to minimise their clinic activity because of their not being in the position to afford the expenses involved in carrying out such work. Sometimes a rural Deputy or Senator travels up to 100 miles to a funeral in his constitutency. Having regard to the cost of petrol, and so on, the expense involved in such a journey can be very high. I do not know how any Deputy since 1981 has been able to avoid running into trouble with his bank while continuing to provide the necessary service to his constituents. Anyone who has been depending solely on his salary as a Deputy for the past three years must have experienced great difficulty. We read in today's papers much criticism of this proposed increase in our salaries but I know people who are associated with that criticism and who are earning up to £24,000 per year in addition to having company cars. However, I hope that the day will come when legislation or regulations will be introduced providing for the publication of the names of those earning in excess of a certain figure. That would provide the Press with the opportunity of delving into the question of salaries right across the board instead of their present situation of concentrating on the salaries of Members of this House.

Another matter to which I should like to draw attention is that of the subsidisation of food in the Dáil restaurant. When I read in the papers one day that our food here is subsidised I wondered if I were frequenting the wrong restaurant in the House. I say this because elsewhere in this city or in my own city I can, at a lower cost, get as good a meal if not better, than I can get here. In such a case there would be no subsidisation but neither would such an event be given any publicity.

Another aspect of this whole issue is the question of the cost of telephone calls that one must make on behalf of constituents. I live 127 miles from Dublin and if a man comes to me in connection with an urgent social welfare problem there is no point in my telling him that I will have the matter looked into when I am in Dublin the following week. He may be in dire necessity and have four or five children depending on him. In such case I would telephone the Department of Social Welfare. I might be transferred to another Department. Invariably, the cost of such a call is in the region of £3 or £4. The Press also fail to draw attention to matters of that kind.

Another aspect of our situation is that we work a good deal in our own homes. We start usually at 9 a.m. and we are still available up to 11 at night if there is somebody who wishes to see us. In addition, our wives and families are usually engaged in helping with our constituency work. We all know what would be the reaction if a trade unionist were told that he would have to work such long hours. I am sure that, leaving aside the political and social involvement, if our jobs were advertised there would be few takers. Not even the National Manpower Service would be able to provide people to fill the positions.

I am contributing to this debate because I want it to be known that I am supporting the Minister. We need this increase. As Deputy Briscoe said, there is no right time in terms of providing for an increase for Deputies. However, it is reassuring to realise that Members from both sides have been bringing pressure to bear on the Minister to bring forward this proposal. I conclude by expressing the hope that the press will give as much coverage to what has been said here today as they have been giving to those who are criticising the increases.

Mr. Mac Giolla

I, too, need this extra money but I know that there are Deputies who are in greater need than I am and that there are some who are better off. I agree with almost everything Deputy Kelly said about the work of Deputies being a never-ending slog and I agree fully with the need for Deputies to be paid on a basis that would ensure that this does not become a rich man's club whereby only those of independent means could become Members. That would be totally wrong and undemocratic. It is only right, therefore, that Deputies should be paid a reasonable salary.

I appreciate that Deputies in rural areas have greater expenses than those in urban areas. It is much more difficult to organise one's work in a widely-spread constituency than would be the case in the more compact urban areas. Although a Deputy in the urban area might have far more people calling on him than would be the case of the Deputy in a rural area, there is more expensive involved in the more extensive geographical area. There is a good deal of expense by way of advertising in local papers and so on but this is the type of situation to which the Minister has not addressed himself. It is the sort of question that successive Ministers have failed to examine adequately. There is great disparity as between the expenses of a Deputy in one area and of a Deputy in another area. Likewise, there is disparity in the amount of time which individual Deputies apply to their work and there is disparity, too, in the incomes of those Deputies who depend totally on their salaries as public representatives and those who have other incomes from other jobs or from businesses. However, these are the factors that are not being dealt with in the Bill.

While there are Deputies who are in need of an increase, this Bill goes much further than that. The first thing we, and particularly this Government, must think of are the times in which we live, the deprivation outside, the continuous lowering of standards of living, the real poverty now obtaining, particularly that experienced over the last two or three years, the pinching and scraping of pennies to put food on the table, that we had not experienced for some years past. It is now widespread, certainly in my constituency and I am sure in those of many other Members as well. The fact is that the general public lay the blame on us, not just the Government, but on every Deputy in this House for their condition. They maintain that we are responsible for the present position of the country, the position which has lost somebody their job, which raised the price of food in the shops to a level at which they cannot pay, that we have brought the country to the stage at which welfare benefits are not even adequate to provide sufficient food, clothing and so on. We are blamed for the position in which people find themselves. That is something we must take into consideration, as must the Government.

Deputies work very hard. I agree with what has been said so far in this debate, that they do work very hard but, as far as the public is concerned, we are doing a bad job; we are responsible for the present position of the country; no matter how hard we work it is contended we are doing a bad job. Therefore, the people responsible for putting us here, who look to us to give them a lead to take them out of this despairing morass in which they find themselves, contend they are not getting that leadership and naturally there is an outcry. They contend we are the people responsible for this situation, the people who have cut back on social welfare benefits, who have deprived them of assistance, for instance who have deprived people of the fuel voucher, just to give one example. This is the type of penny-pinching being perpetrated. For instance, there is the cutting back on the double week's benefits at Christmas. Yet at the same time we say: well, we need the money so we will give ourselves an increase. I know there is great justification for Deputies — and I am talking about Deputies only at present — receiving the increase. But the overall responsibility of the House, in times of such deprivation, should be to deprive ourselves for at least a while longer in an endeavour to take the country out of its present morass, when we would then be more justified in granting such increases.

In section 2 there are peculiar distinctions drawn. For example, Members receive allowances but the Taoiseach, Tánaiste, Ministers and Ministers of State get salaries. Then we progress to the higher level at which the Chief Justice, President of the High Court, Judges of the Supreme Court, High Court, President of the Circuit Court, Judges of the Circuit Court, President of the District Court, judges and so on receive remuneration. I do not know the reason for the differences between allowances, salaries and remuneration. It seems to me that Deputies are not paid at all, that they merely receive an allowance. I do not know how that practice began. It appears from a reading of the Bill that, for instance, the Taoiseach receives a salary of £27,937 but he also receives his Member's allowance. Whatever about the justification for the Member's allowance being increased — and I maintain there is a justification for that — there would be real justification only at a time when at least we gave some hope, when the country began to move forward. Secondly, I contend there would be justification only if we paid Members' allowances on the basis of salaries, straightforward pay, imposing the same tax on them as on everybody else in receipt of straight-forward pay. In other words, put Deputies on a straight salary and in a straight tax situation the same as everybody else in receipt of a salary. But at present they are not. This allowance situation — which I do not understand — leads to that position, in which we get allowances, 50 per cent of which are tax free, in which position various other changes can be made whereas, were we paid salary, that could not be done.

I see no justification for the increases in salaries and remuneration, that is the salaries of the Taoiseach, Ministers, Ministers of State, the remuneration of justices and so on. In the case of the Taoiseach, Ministers, Ministers of State, they will already be receiving the increase in their Member's allowance, on top of which they will receive an increased salary. Deputies have advanced very good cases for such increases. Such arguments might justify, say, the increase in Member's allowance in the case of the Taoiseach and members of the Government. But it is not a justification for the increased salary of the Taoiseach and members of the Government. Furthermore, I do not believe any member of the public can see a justification for the increase in what is described as the remuneration of the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court, judges of the Supreme Court and so on, all along the line, when the courts are also seen to be doing a bad job. This is something that can be raised under the Criminal Justice Bill, but in fact is not being dealt with under that Bill. It is contended that the courts are doing a bad job, they are not seen by the public to be relevant to them. The public do not see the courts system generally as something they can readily understand. They see the courts system as something much too expensive for them ever to be able to use to their benefit. All of these increases in judges' salaries will be followed by increases in solicitors' and barristers' fees, charges and so on, further increasing the costs of the courts.

The point I am making is that the increases being granted will not be justified in the eyes of the general public. Perhaps the increase in Members' allowances could be justified in the minds of the public if they were paid on the same basis as that of anybody else in receipt of a salary. It should be remembered that what Deputies receive already, the £13,000 odd, is approximately the same wage as that of a Garda. It is now quite a common salary throughout the country — paid to clerks in the civil service, and various other people. But the difference is that 50 per cent of Deputies' allowances is tax free and they are taxed on the balance only. That is a big issue at present bearing in mind the huge increase in taxation. PRSI contributions and everything else. Therefore a balance should be struck in setting out clearly what are Deputies' salaries and then having them taxed the same as everybody else's. The expenses which Deputies have should be dealt with in that manner, as proven expenses, because there are Deputies and Senators and other people in various organisations who will rip off a system if they can do so.

I believe that Deputies in large, rural constituencies who have tremendous expenses which they cannot claim for should also be able to claim proven expenses for the work they have to do in their constituences. If Deputies had a salary which was fully taxable, with proven expenses, they could be accountable, straightforward and honest with the public. In relation to expenses, Deputies in Dublin should at least have to sign the attendance sheet to prove their attendance and there should be a clocking in system for that.

I may be wrong but my reading of the Public Service pay agreement which was threshed out by the Minister for the Public Service, Deputy Boland, who was present during those discussions or possibly only at some stage——

Mr. Boland

I was there for every little minute of the discussions.

Mr. Mac Giolla

All right, the Minister saw the discussions right through from start to finish. My interpretation is that the Minister has blatantly breached the Public Service pay agreement——

Mr. Boland

I am afraid the person who gave the Deputy that information was only there for a very short period.

Mr. Mac Giolla

I am not sure who was there or who was not there.

Mr. Boland

Your colleague, Mr. Geraghty, was there.

Mr. Mac Giolla

I am simply talking about the agreement and there seemed to be clauses in it which the Minister for the Public Service did not adhere to in this Bill. If this is true the argument that we are in line with the Public Service is wrong. There are possibly many interpretations and maybe I am wrong but it seems that the percentages which we did not get in the past amounts to 19 per cent. In the Public Service, even when people prove they are entitled to retrospective pay they cannot get it all at once, they can only get 40 per cent this year and the balance in 1985. In this Bill the Minister is making retrospective payments all at once from September of this year.

With regard to special expenses, it seems from a clause in the agreement that the Public Service could only claim one special increase and that they could not claim another for three years. The Minister argued here before that these special increases were one of the biggest problems in the Public Service. However, in this Bill there are three increases in allowances for travelling expenses, overnight allowances, etc. which are in breach of the Public Service pay agreement. I should like to go into this question on Committee Stage and, in that connection, I wish to raise the point again which I raised on the Order of Business this morning. When it was announced we were taking Second Stage, I asked if that was the only stage we were taking because that is all that is on the Order Paper. There is a rumour in the daily newspapers that all stages are to be taken today. I still have not got an answer to my question and, when we have completed Second Stage, the Minister will probably say that he will take Committee Stage then and put the Bill through the House. If that happens, I shall protest very strongly because this Bill is quite complicated——

An Ceann Comhairle

As the Chair informed the Deputy previously, he will have a chance of dealing with that point then.

Mr. Mac Giolla

That has not happened in the House since I came here at any rate. I know I am not that long here but we were always told on the Order of Business whether all stages would be taken. I just want confirmation from the Minister that we are not moving on to Committee Stage because this is a complicated Bill. There are six other Bills referred to in it and any amendments would take some time to prepare.

On the basis of the problems which people are facing, many of which are seen by the public as having been brought about by the operations of this and previous Governments and by this House generally. The Workers' Party will be opposing this Bill and hope to put down some amendments on Committee Stage.

Deputy G. Brady rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

In order to preserve balance I have to go to the Opposition and then to the Government side of the House.

Mr. G. Brady

I should like to point out that there was a Fine Gael speaker before Deputy Mac Giolla.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am calling on Deputy Doyle.

Mr. J. Doyle

I shall be very brief in my contribution. I am a full-time politician with no other income. When I was elected to this House I doubled my salary as, in my previous occupation, I earned roughly half of what a Deputy earns. However, I was able to provide for my family and to save. Unfortunately, since I was elected to this House, although I can still provide for my family I have not been able to save. I do not know where my salary goes, it just melts away.

Deputy Mac Giolla raised the issue of half one's salary being tax free. I understand that this arrangement was made by the Revenue Commissioners with regard to Deputies and other professional bodies. The Revenue Commissioners very seldom err and, if they do, they err on the right side. If they felt that a Deputy's expenses were less than half his salary they would take a different view. My case illustrates that expenses do take half your salary. However, I am sure if any Deputy does not want to accept that arrangement with the Revenue Commissioners, he is entitled to write to them asking to be taxed in the normal way and have his expenses deducted.

A Deputy who fails to be re-elected may not qualify for the pension to which he has contributed. The Minister is very fair in giving back the payments that Deputy had made to the pension fund. That has not been the case up to now. I congratulate the Minister on the Bill.

Mr. G. Brady

I should like to confine my contribution on this Stage specifically to the point that the entire provisions for salaries and remuneration are made directly in line with the Devlin Report. On a Bill of this kind any Deputy could make far-reaching statements about his or her expenses or individual case, but it is important at all times during this discussion to refer back to the Devlin Report. If there is any need for a second opinion to the Devlin Report, any need for another independent assessment or re-evaluation of the operation of the Houses of the Oireachtas or, indeed, of the Judiciary, I certainly would welcome it. Nothing would be more constructive than that. Every Member of the House would welcome such evaluation, which would be an in-depth investigation of how parliament works in this country and I would wish that to be extended to the civil service also. This is the very fabric of our society. A commission that has set about doing a particular task in evaluating the salary structure of Members of Parliament or of the Judiciary must have cognisance taken of its report or otherwise it should be pointed out that the report falls short of what is required. If the latter is the case then something should be done about it and there should be a re-evaluation. Every Member of the House would welcome such an independent assessment. If it is necessary to employ, say, a team of work study experts in each Department of the civil service or within the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Judiciary, let us have it. That is the way you arrive at a basis of assessment as to what a particular task is worth in payment of any kind.

Obviously, there will be flagrant inefficiency levels in every occupation.

Nobody would be so naive as to suggest that such does not prevail within this very building. In fact, I am on record as saying that I do not regard the very structures of Parliament as being suited to meet the modern needs of Parliament. But we must remember that the Minister, Deputy Boland, in putting forward this Bill did so exactly in line with the Devlin Report, and that is crucial to this issue.

Deputy Mac Giolla made one rather cynical remark. I am sorry he is not here for me to say this directly to him. It is cynical to regard something as being palatable to the electorate or to people outside — to quote his words — it will not be seen by the public as being acceptable. One could infer straightaway that if it could be made palatable to the public one would engage in a presentation of that kind. I regard that as a cynical approach. It is very easy to be destructive by blanket statements about Dáil Deputies and Senators not doing their work or a bad job being done and to include also in those statements the Judiciary. It is very easy to be destructive, and it is difficult to be constructive in one's approach.

This Bill goes right across the Judiciary and is not concerning itself solely with Members of the Oireachtas. To take carte blanche and to talk of the entire Judiciary as doing, as he said, a bad job is destructive. This is a statement which should not be allowed to be made in this Chamber and to go unchallenged. That type of comment does nothing to uphold the democratic institutions of the State.

The evaluation by Devlin was carried out a few short years ago. We are not talking about a Devlin Report a couple of decades ago or one decade ago. The Devlin Report was issued only a few years ago. If the Dáil considers that the evaluation should be done again we have our Committee on Procedure and Privileges and the machinery and infrastructure for re-evaluation if all parties indicate that that is necessary. If that is the case let us get on with it. That would be a very healthy exercise for each and every Member of the Oireachtas.

There are so many aspects to this matter that if there is inaction over a number of years then as soon as action is taken to control the situation there will be some public outcry. That is self-evident.

This argument can be taken into local authorities. I just want to refer to local authorities because many Members of the Oireachtas are also members of local authorities. Is that desirable in itself? Would it not be better if, say, Members of the Oireachtas had to give up their positions in local authorities on being elected to parliament? There are so many aspects to this type of legislation that it is difficult to speak about in the short time available. Before the Dáil went into recess — the Chamber was quite empty at the time — this entire situation was discussed at length and the various contributions are in the Official Report. The Minister is doing what he is obliged to do by the Devlin Report. That is the simple equation, unless we can call into question that report and throw it out and say that for one reason or another we are dissatisfied with it. At the time the report was made it was regarded as being a sensible evaluation of the entire infrastructure. That is the way we have to look upon this Bill. I have read through it carefully and I have listened to the Second Reading speech of the Minister. If I felt that the Devlin Report recommendations were being breached I personally would be unhappy about that, but I have not seen that they are.

A great deal has been said about the workload of Deputies. This varies greatly from one person to the next. One person will do his job well and another person will not be as conscientious about it. Most of my colleagues would agree that it is important that more time be made available to Members to debate within the Chamber. I am not one for diluting the system or for hiving off a lot of work to committees or anything of that kind. Just to increase the efficiency of parliament would go a long way towards winning the battle, may be the public mind as well. It all comes back to the question of increasing efficiency.

Our senior civil servants will agree that if any Department can be made to operate a few per cent more efficiently, then the savings to the nation are very great indeed. The same can be said for this Parliament and for the Judiciary, but that is not to say that the entire system is bad or that it does not work. I do not go along with that view.

In conclusion, let me say that the Devlin Report is our point of reference in this debate.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Barrett,

Dún Laoghaire): Deputies in this House perhaps could take a very popular line and stand up and object to any increase, and I am sure that the public would be delighted to hear that some people are doing that. However, this is what has politics the way it is today. This issue is not just about money. The headlines gave it as a 19 per cent increase. If I was a member of the public driving home or sitting in a bus and heard or read such a headline I would be very disturbed, unless I got the full facts and full information and had an opportunity of either listening to or reading the various points of view and the real facts behind the increase in question. Unfortunately, the public are not getting that opportunity. Deputy Mac Giolla chose to leave the Chamber after he spoke. I do not blame him for that, I am sure he has other business to attend to, but I would like him to be here when I refer to some of the things he said. We have heard from him what people like to hear, yet he will receive the same increase as the rest of us. More important than that, Deputy Mac Giolla gave out inaccurate information. As an elected representative he has a duty just as I have and as have our friends in the Press Gallery. All of us involved in the democratic process have a moral duty to make certain that the people who elected us and who depend on us get accurate information. If it is reported that we are in breach of the national wage agreement that could have very serious repercussions throughout the length and breadth of the country and could lead to industrial unrest unless somebody put that to rights.

We are not in breach of the national wage agreement. What Deputy Mac Giolla was referring to was special claims, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the terms of the national wage agreement. He said that as a result of us taking all these increases together we are in breach of the national wage agreement. That is inaccurate and it is improper of him to say it. He should not have said it unless he was sure of his facts. He is an elected representative and happens to be a leader of a political party.

I have heard also some people in the trade union movement making statements that were inaccurate. I do not want to get into a slagging match with people who either have written editorials in newspapers or who are members of trade unions. However, I ask those people to examine their own consciences, and I ask them what increases they got over the last 18 months or two years. I know — and I have the figures here in front of me — that some of them were well in excess of 19 per cent. I remind Deputy Mac Giolla, who referred to the fact that judges, Ministers and Ministers of State should not get a percentage increase, that that principle does not apply in the trade union movement. I am sure the person at the top of the scale in the trade union movement gets his increases just as does the ordinary branch representative at the bottom. It is consistently wrong to keep talking about our tax-free allowances without going into more detail and explaining how Deputies are paid, what their conditions of employment are and what they will lose in the event of an election and their not being re-elected. You cannot compare the job of a Deputy with that of a PAYE earner. We are in a situation similar to that of the self-employed, and the reason that the Revenue Commissioners set a 50 per cent limit for expenses against income is that they regard Dáil Deputies as being somewhat in the same area as the self-employed. For the benefit of those Deputies who do not want to avail of the 50 per cent, it is quite open to any individual Deputy to negotiate with the Revenue Commissioners either upwards or downwards if he or she can justify that position.

A very telling point was made by my colleague, Deputy Joe Doyle, whose integrity nobody would doubt for one moment. He does not stand up in this House and make statements that he cannot stand over. What he said is true. In my job as Chief Whip I come into contact with a number of Deputies who will discuss personal matters with one and will tell one details about their personal life that are worrying them. I can state here for the record that a number of Deputies in this House are in a very serious financial position, have very large overdrafts, and cannot take their wives or children on holidays because of the position they find themselves in at the moment. It is wrong to keep pumping out information to the public, either through the Press or through Deputies, which is inaccurate and therefore the public cannot make up their minds whether what we are doing is right or wrong.

Deputy Brady put his finger on it. If people in this House think that there is need for a review, that we are being overpaid or that other things should change, we are quite open to have another commission examine this and let the public be aware of the full information. I am concerned that respect for the institutions of this country is being undermined consistently, in my opinion by some people who have vested interests in attacking those institutions because their type of politics and mine do not match. I want to refer to an article that appeared in one of last evening's papers which again is giving inaccurate information to the people who are depending on that sort of information to enable them to make up their minds whether Deputies are getting A, B, or C or are entitled to whatever. I would like to quote one or two points which are very relevant.

A member who lives more than ten miles from Leinster House is classified as rural and is entitled to claim an overnight allowance of £27.50 every night the House sits.

That is inaccurate. A Deputy who lives over ten miles from Leinster House is not entitled to claim £27.50 per night. A Deputy who lives over 20 miles away, if he or she stays in a hotel, guest house, or whatever it is, in this city while the Dáil is sitting, is entitled to that expense. If he or she decides to drive home that evening such a person is not entitled to £27.50 but is entitled to travelling allowances to and from the Dáil. It is more serious than that.

An Ceann Comhairle

I ask the Minister to give the reference if he is quoting.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): I am referring to the Evening Press of 2 November 1983. The heading is “TDs' salary hike just before the storm”. It goes on:

If a member attended every night for the average of 85 sittings a year, he would be entitled to pick up a total of £2,337...

That, again, is inaccurate. It makes reference then to travelling allowances. The impression given in this article is that we are getting both travelling allowances and the overnight allowance, which is inaccurate. We get either one or another, You live over 20 miles away and you stay in the city overnight and you are entitled to £27.50 under this new Bill. If you decide to drive home you do not get £27.50; you get travelling expenses.

It referred, then, to Dublin-based Deputies and what may now be the £16 day allowance, but this is paid only when the Dáil is sitting. It also states that Dublin-based Deputies are entitled to travelling expenses, which is inaccurate. The article even quotes a figure estimated at £640 a year tax-free allowance. That also is inaccurate. Here is information pumped out in the public press to those sitting at home who have to make up their minds as to whether those whom they elected are doing the job honestly and are getting what they are entitled to receive. If they get blatantly inaccurate information, that will not do any good whatsoever. This causes me concern more than the amount of money that I or any other Deputy in this House will get. I am prepared to make the same sacrifices as anybody else and if I am asked to forefeit 5 per cent or 10 per cent like everybody else, I shall be prepared to do so, not in any heroic, patronising fashion, and I am sure that every other Deputy would also. The leader of this morning's Irish Independent states:

The 19 p.c. increases announced by Public Service Minister John Boland are not a penny more or less than those awarded to others in the public service since 1981.

The leader continues:

So the outcry that has greeted this announcement is not really about the size of the increases (or the timing) but rather about whether or not public representatives (TDs and Senators in particular) earn the salaries that they are paid and deserve the allowances they are afforded from the public purse.

I would like to think that that is what this debate is all about but I must disagree with the writer of that article. This debate is not about that, but about the size of the increases. I would welcome a debate as to whether or not we are doing our jobs as we should, or whether there is room for improvement. I have no doubt that there is. The banner headlines were about the 19 per cent increase and the public do not know about anything else. I spoke to a few people last night and explained at some length and in detail various cases among my colleagues, particularly rural Members, which I have come across as Chief Whip. I explained about the tax allowance and the net take-home pay of a Deputy after all his expenses are paid. They could not believe me and thought that I was telling lies. That is as a result of the misinformation given out. They read that Deputies can receive £27.50 a night if they happen to live over ten miles from Dublin and they believe that. They believe that Deputies can claim for travelling expenses and overnight allowances for just attending the Dáil. It is not clear to the public that an urban Deputy will get his £10 at the moment only when the Dáil is sitting.

I am disturbed by this misrepresentation. I choose to speak as Chief Whip because I feel obliged to defend a number of people who over the last number of months have told me of their plight. It is morally wrong that misinformation of this kind should be consistently published for the electorate to read, an electorate who trust us to do our job, by people with a vested interest in doing so. We do not have the opportunity of contradicting them.

If one examines the record of other countries which consistently refused to pay their public representative properly, one will see what has happened. Parliament became a rich man's club. If it did not, there were allegations of corruption, bribery and so on. If people do not get a decent standard of living which attracts people into the profession, they will become public representatives for the wrong motives, or on a part-time basis. We have tried over the last couple of months to carry out some reforms of the Dáil. We have set up Dáil committees and we will be asking Deputies to work longer hours and be more constructive in their approach. I would love to see this Chamber filled for a proper discussion on the real issues affecting the country and hope before my term of office as Chief Whip ends to see a live Chamber in which people debate current issues and deal with the problems facing the country. Let us not jump on bandwagons for the sake of a few votes, saying that we should not be paid for doing a job. If we are not doing the job properly we should not be re-elected by those who put us here in the first place.

The leading article in this morning's Irish Independent was very fair. I say that perhaps because it was the most favourable of those which I read and politicians have a habit of latching on to what may be most favourable, but the article was hitting at what this debate should be about — about how we are performing, whether or not we are doing our job and the people we represent are getting the maximum benefit from our service here, and whether we will be prepared to work extra hours serving constructively on committees.

I know of one Deputy whose credit diminished because he could not continue to afford to pay the cost of the advertisements already inserted in newspapers of previous weeks or months advertising his clinic. He is not going about with money falling out of his pockets. This Deputy has a number of children and an overdraft of £10,000 directly as a result of three elections, no increase in salary and greater expectations of him, both in terms of financial contributions to charity and touring around his constituency giving an excellent service to the people he represents.

I hope that those who contribute to this debate may do so in a constructive fashion and will not grab a headline for the sake of a few votes which would ultimately lead to the destruction of our parliamentary system. Deputy Mac Giolla said "They lay the blame on us". That is what is wrong with the country at present. Politicians think that they can solve every problem. On a recent "Trom agus Eadrom" programme in connection with the 21st Anniversary of the National Federation of Youth Clubs, one young lady said "I am sick and tired of listening to people saying ‘What are they going to do for us?'". She said "It is time we said `What are we going to do for ourselves?". Politicians cannot solve the problems without the co-operation of these they represent.

I reject the allegation by Deputy Mac Giolla that our judges are not doing their work properly. There may be individual cases where we do not like the decision handed down by a particular judge but let us not now attack our judicial system. Our courts, by and large, operate very fairly and efficiently. Those serving in them deserve their payment as much as anybody else. If we do not pay our judges properly how will we get people to serve on the bench? A good senior or junior counsel, or solicitor, would earn much more practising at the Bar than is quoted as a judge's pay today. Let us not attack our judicial system for the sake of grabbing a headline.

I join with another speaker, not because he is a member of my own party but because he was brave enough to do the job for which he was elected that is, our Minister, Deputy Boland. He did it following numerous requests from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges which represents all Deputies. There were various submissions from Deputies explaining their problems and seeking justifiable increases. It is unpopular for the Minister to introduce the Bill at this stage. The easiest thing to do would be to forget about it, postpone if for a month and next month postpone it for another two months. At the end of the day we will have to ask ourselves: are the people who are getting these increases entitled to them or are they not? Will the problem run away if we leave it for three months or six months?

Deputy Mac Giolla said it is right that Deputies should be paid a reasonable salary. What is a reasonable salary? Is the salary quoted here reasonable? It is in accord with the national wage agreement increases given to everybody else. Therefore I claim it is reasonable. It is not suggested that Deputies should get more than other people got in the two national wage agreements. It is exactly the same percentage. I gladly support this Bill and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. P. Gallagher

Cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille seo a tugadh isteach ag an Aire chun ardú pá a thabhairt don na daoine san Teach seo agus an Teach eile. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil go leor Teachtaí Dála agus Seanadóirí nach féidir maireachtáil ar an méid ioncaim atá acu san lá atá inniu ann.

I welcome this Bill introduced by the Minister for the Public Service. I commend the Minister on taking the decision to introduce it now. I hope to indicate to the public the financial problems of TDs in rural areas. As a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, over the past number of months I have spoken with colleagues from all sides of the House. They have confided in me and given me some idea of the grave financial problems they experience. I was appalled to learn from them — and I am sure they told me in all good faith — of the financial difficulties they are experiencing. As a Member of this House I can fully appreciate them.

It is extremely difficult to convince the public that Members of the Oireachtas need to be given an increase even in difficult times during an economic recession. I do not blame the public for that. There is the fallacy that once a person becomes a TD or a Senator automatically he or she is extremely well off. From my two short years in this House I know the case is the opposite. I am a lot poorer as a Member of this House than I was before. I am proud to be a Member of this House and I hope I will be a TD for many a long day, and for as long as the people want me. Many of us will not be able to continue to be Members of the House if we are to remain on our present income. We will not be in a financial position to do so, and we will not be able to give the public the service they require.

There is a fallacy about the tax concession. The Minister of State explained to us that we can revert to the other system if we consult the Revenue Commissioners. I have no doubt many Members of the House will consider that. In the past, the tax concession was meant to compensate Members of the Oireachtas for expenses incurred in their constituencies. The tax concession to Members of the Oireachtas from rural areas represents a very small percentage of the expenses incurred. I will try to give the public some indication of the expenses a rural Deputy incurs.

I was not aware that this Bill was coming before the House today and I have not got exact figures. The figures I will give are reasonably accurate. I can show anybody interested the factual figures. I am a rural Deputy and I believe I am speaking for all my colleagues in rural areas when I refer to the questions of telephones. Last year my telephone bill was some £3,000. Deputy Kelly spoke as a person with an excellent knowledge of the problems experienced by rural Deputies. He referred to a telephone bill of £400 for a quarter. I only wish my telephone bill was as low as that.

The petrol which I use driving around my constituency costs me about £2,500. I can claim no expenses for that. This does not include the maintenance of the car. Before I became a Member of this House I changed my car reasonably often. I have had the same car since I came into the House, and I do not know when I will be able to change it even if we get this increase.

Like other rural Deputies I have a full-time constituency office, open five days a week, eight hours a day. I have to pay for the manning of this office, its maintenance, lighting and heating. In addition, clinics have to be advertised. In my constituency I have to use three of the local papers at a cost of approximately £45 per week. These are all basic expenses. We do not sponsor events because of competitiveness. We do so in all good faith. I sponsor as many events as I can afford. That comes to at least £1,000 per year.

My constituency extends 60 miles by 100 miles approximately. We are treated exactly the same as TDs in much smaller areas. I am not complaining about that. I would be delighted if I were in a constituency where, as Deputy Kelly said, one could walk from one end of it to the other. That is not to say I would swop south-west Donegal for any other constituency. It is the constituents I represent who will benefit from this increase. In the recent past I considered seriously curtailing my activities because of the situation in which we found ourselves. having received no increase since June 1981. It would sadden me and many of my colleagues if we had to do that. It might be of physical benefit to us if we did not have to do these arduous runs throughout constituencies, but I would not want to curtail them.

I am pleased that the Minister has introduced this Bill. Our constituents will benefit and not necessarily ourselves. This increase will assist TDs and Senators who are in financial difficulties to get out of their difficulties. It is important that it should be linked to any increases given to the civil service. It may be suggested that some Deputies or Senators do not deserve their incomes. I believe that is for the constituents to decide, and they have had ample opportunity to do that over the last two-and-a-half years. If a Deputy or Senator is not doing his work, he will not be returned.

It is also for the constituents to decide on the question of two incomes. I am not ashamed to say that I am able to supplement my Dáil income. If I were not, I could not give the service I now provide for my constituents. It is not hard to deduce from the figures I have already given that my net income from this House leaves me with a very serious deficit at the end of each year. If I did not have a small supplementary income I could not make ends meet. Unlike other Deputies, I do not have family commitments. If I had, I do not think I would be able to survive but would have to opt out of public life.

This House should not be a rich man's club. Anybody should be able to be elected to this House, irrespective of his supplementary income. I have heard numerous colleagues state over the last 12 months that they will have to reconsider the position very seriously at the next general election. I welcome the fact that the Minister has ensured that for 21 days between the time the Dáil is dissolved and a new Dáil is elected, Deputies will be compensated. That is a time, particularly in rural constituencies, when expenses are really high.

I would like to compare the hours worked by Deputies and by people with comparative salaries in the Civil Service, semi-State bodies or any other employment. I can only speak for myself, but I want to tell people outside that I work an average 16 to 17 hour day. Last Saturday week I worked 20 hours on behalf of my constituents. My constituents are the best judges of whether I am a good TD, because they benefit from my work. Very few Deputies can take holidays. I did not take holidays this year because I felt my duty was to my constituents. I was rewarded because I represented this country at a conference held in the Far East. I did not consider that a holiday, but it was a rest from politics. I worked as hard at that conference as if I were at home. It must be remembered that when one returns home, the work has accumulated.

The public should be made aware of the fact that while food is being subsidised in this House, meals cost much more here than in any other part of Dublin. The £17.50 we get at present is not for a bed night but to compensate us for bed and breakfast, lunch and an afternoon meal. If one was on sausage and chips for breakfast, dinner and supper, one could not survive on £17.50.

Over the past few days some people have been very critical of these increases, but any reports by political correspondents who normally work in this House have given a very impartial view and they have been very fair in their comments. I have no doubt the views expressed here today will also be reported fairly. I hope that for once in our lives we will be able, through the media, to sell to the public the fact that this is not a House where the people elected suddenly become rich. I know from experience that when one is elected to this House one's supplementary income begins to erode because of our dedication to this job.

I would like to give an outline of a rural Deputy's work. When I leave this House this evening at 5 p.m. I will return to a meeting in south-west Donegal for 8.30 p.m. Tomorrow morning I will attend a meeting at Lifford and tomorrow evening I will hold clinics in another part of my constituency. I will continue with this work all Saturday until midnight. On Sunday morning I will do the islands and attend further meetings on Sunday evening. On Monday I will attend planning meetings at Donegal County Council in Lifford and then back to west Donegal to do further constituency work. I will leave for Dublin at about midnight Monday to be here for Tuesday. I would not want to inflict my job on my worst enemy. One has to be a Member of this House to realise the difficulties one experiences. The cynical answer is that nobody asked me to come into this House, because if it is painful, it is self-inflicted. I am proud to be a Member of this House and I am happy to have the health to be able to work for my constituents. I am not here to blow my own trumpet. I am here today to try to give the public an indication of the type of work rural Deputies have to do. We do this work not only when the House is sitting but throughout the summer as well. I did not have an opportunity to enjoy our beautiful summer this year. We are elected to serve the people and we have to be available to them at all times.

I extend an invitation to any member of the press, national or local, to travel with me any weekend on my clinics throughout West Donegal. At the end of the weekend, if he reported on all the work I had done, that would help convince the public that we need these increases to give them a better service. I should like to commend the Minister for introducing this legislation. He has taken a courageous political decision at a difficult time.

Mr. Bell

I understand another colleague is anxious to contribute and for that reason I will be brief. It is important that I as a trade unionist and a Member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges should add my voice to this debate. I do not make any apologies to my trade union colleagues in regard to what I will say. Rather I hope that my contribution will help to convey to them the correct situation, which is contrary to that conveyed in the last two days. Without being political I must point out that many trade union colleagues who have expressed views in regard to this matter would not have accepted the situation that has been inflicted upon Members of both Houses. Even the most junior trade union official would not accept that he, or his staff, did not get an increase in their allowance for more than three years or an increase in salary for more than two years. If one read other aspects covered in the media in recent days one would see that those employed by trade unions insist, and rightly so, on being paid increases in accordance with the normal cost of living increases. Trade union officials, like politicians, have to live, rear and educate families.

I was surprised at some of the comments made in recent days, because I was convinced that if the situation that has existed here occurred in the trade union movement there would have been pickets outside Leinster House for a long time. No section of the community has been thrown around from Billy to Jack or chastised left, right and centre by people who enjoy incomes substantially in excess of that of the Taoiseach like the politicians. As legislators I do not think we owe anybody an apology. Listening to some people one gets the impression that politicians are some type of animal who can exist on the open prairie. One would imagine that we do not have to eat or spend money the way normal people do.

I should like to put on record the fact that having contested three general elections in recent years I was left with an overdraft in my bank of £3,500. Since I was elected to the House that situation has worsened by a further £1,500. I would be happy to produce those facts for any commentators. I have no doubt that if my wife was present she would have a lot more to say about this matter. As a representative of the Labour Party on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges I fought tooth and nail with other colleagues to have the situation improved and, in particular, to wipe out the antiquated situation that exists in that Members must justify before every citizen an increase in their pay. No section of the farming, industrial, trade union or business community must do that. We are the only section of the population that must do that. It must be remembered also that we do not have any representation.

I am anxious to place on record my support for this move by the Minister. I am pleased that never again will Members be denigrated in this manner. In future Members will get the same increases as those granted to the Army, Garda force, public service and those employed by local authorities, an increase appropriate to the terms negotiated by the public services committee of ICTU. It may be said that history has been created in this legislation in as much as the trade union movement from now on will be responsible for negotiating increases for Oireachtas Members with the Minister for the Public Service of the day. We will then avoid the embarrassing situation of having to defend our position before the nation.

I do not think we need to defend ourselves, and I shall give some examples to illustrate that point. As a member of Louth County Council if I travel from Drogheda to Dundalk and attend a meeting which commences at 10 a.m. and concludes at approximately 2 p.m. I am paid, like other members travelling the same distance, £24. That figure covers mileage and subsistence allowance. The distance from Drogheda to Dundalk is 22 miles, but if I travel from Drogheda to Dublin, a distance which is 50 per cent longer, I am paid £10.30. Incidentally, local councillors continue to complain about the shabby treatment they receive in regard to allowances. Any member of a State or semi-State body — I had the privilege of being on such a board before I became a Member of the House — is paid on a 16 horse power car a rate of 40p per mile. I was paid for travelling from my home town 18.3p per mile. Where, for example, will any person get an evening meal and bed and breakfast in Dublin for £17.50? What is the reason for the difference in that amount and the figure my colleagues in the trade union movement are paid? The Minister now proposes to pay Members the same level of subsistence that applies to them. I am not referring to any particular union but to all unions under ICTU. How many trade union colleagues provide their own car, pay for their own petrol, tax and insurance and cover 25,000 miles per annum around their district without any payment?

Many people do not realise that Members travel thousands of miles throughout their constituencies at night and at weekends without receiving any payment. Contrary to public opinion Members are only paid the allowances during recess time when they attend at any of the Departments in an official capacity. That may occur on two days each week, but on other days they must trot around to deal with planning applications, companies in difficulty or attend at their clinics. Frankly, Members up to now have not stood up to be counted on this issue and I am pleased that that has changed because they do not owe an apology to anybody.

It must also be stated that Members will not receive retrospective payments which they are entitled to — that does not apply to me as much as it does to others. I do not know of any trade unionist who would accept a wage award in the public service or in industry given after two years if it did not include a retrospective element. As a person who has worked in the trade union movement as a full time official for more than 25 years I have never seen that happen. This is the first time I have seen a two-year wage award in arrears being paid without retrospection.

There is also the matter of Deputies having a second job. As a trade unionist I agree people should not have a second job, but we must face the fact that the people who are complaining about it now were the people who elected to this House those who have a business, who are barristers, solicitors, auctioneers and farmers. Those of us who have to rely on one salary did not put them there. The people of the country have the choice to elect to this House representatives who will have one job only.

I do not think anything can be done in a practical way in relation to this matter. A suggestion has been made that there should be a different rate of pay for representatives who have a second job. If a person has a business and then becomes a Member of this House what is he to do? Is somebody suggesting he should give his business away? It is nonsense to suggest that would happen. Some of the people who have made this suggestion have second jobs. One person has a very large pension from a State-sponsored body and I do not think he will give it away. I realise that the business of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges is confidential, but I have no hesitation in saying that at one stage I suggested the best thing all Deputies could do would be to form a branch of one of the major trade unions, to have professionals negotiate proper conditions of employment and deal with those who constantly snipe at politicians and at their personal affairs. They have hounded them to death, day and night.

I was particularly impressed with the editorial in today's Irish Independent. It was a real effort to state all the facts, and it was a rational and balanced article. I must say to my fellow-trade unionists in the press that I am appalled at some of the articles about politicians and their conditions of employment. I must say that most of my journalist colleagues in the trade union movement earn more money each week than Deputies. They are paid better allowances also and I can produce the figures to verify this. It would appear a handful of journalists spend all their time trying to downgrade politicians. They forget about the work involved and the hassle of working seven days each week.

The last Fianna Fáil speaker said it would be interesting to have a journalist stay with a politician for a day to see what he did. By a coincidence I brought a journalist with me today to do that. After reading all the comments in the papers I began to wonder if I was fooling the public and to question whether I was in Leinster House under false pretences. I invited a journalist to come to Dublin with me to let him see what happens from the time I left home. I do not know what he will write, and I shall not try to influence him, but the result will be interesting. He has not seen me doing nothing in Leinster House.

I may sound angry about this, but I am angry. As a trade unionist I never had to go before the people and justify the fact that I negotiated an agreement with a company on behalf of the members I represented. On occasions I have disagreed with the Minister but in this matter he has taken the initiative, as have the Government, and I support it fully. I am sure that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle as a member of the Parliamentary Labour Party will also support it. Members of the Labour Party will not disagree with what is proposed, because the recommendations made and the agreement arrived at were carried overwhelmingly by this House. I agree there were one or two exceptions, but these people have not as yet justified their case.

I could go on about this for a long time and give many facts and figures. From now onwards Deputies will be treated with respect, as they should be. When people like Gay Byrne and others malign Deputies they should defend themselves against people who have double and treble the income of Deputies and Senators.

Mr. Dowling

I agree with much that has been said in this debate. I shall not repeat the views expressed because I do not wish to be repetitive. Nevertheless, I would not like to let the opportunity pass without expressing my resentment at the manner in which the increase in salary to Deputies in particular has been presented by some press commentators.

It is extremely unfair that some press commentators, as Deputy Bell pointed out, should spend most of their time trying to find fault with Deputies, whether it be with regard to salary or the constituency work they carry out. Deputy Bell referred to the editorial in this morning's Irish Independent. I am glad to say it was a balanced article. He indicated one line that was significant, namely, that while we may be accused of spending too much time on basic constituency work, there are many corpses of politicians who forgot about their constituents, as they found to their grief at election times. Neither I nor any other Deputy knows what will happen in the future. Most politicians should be in receipt of a salary much in excess of what they have been getting up to now because they do not have security of tenure.

I should like to ask the press commentators who have researched the salaries of Deputies, Ministers and members of the Judiciary to go back over a number of years and see how those salaries have progressed in relation to comparable employment in other sectors. I am sure they would find we have not gone ahead. In the past I have said that percentage wage increases mean an increase in imbalances rather than a reduction. There was considerable coverage in the press about a significant increase in this case. Thirty minutes after the announcement on television constituents telephoned me mentioning we had received an increase of 20 per cent. They gave a percentage of 19.9, and now it has become 20 per cent. Even if that is not the increase, that is what is in the public mind at a time when there is much need for restraint in regard to wage increases.

This is far from a 20 per cent increase. It was 2 per cent over one period, a 5 per cent increase, a 6 per cent increase and a 4.75 per cent increase. They are the details but they have been significantly avoided.

I came here as a Senator in April 1982 and at that time I had another job. I found it extremely difficult at the time to do both. I was elected to this House last November and I resigned from my job in January. Now I entirely depend on the income I get as a TD. Like Deputy Bell and other Deputies I could not exist, never mind live, without the increase. The press have been responsible for some of the criticisms and I would ask them to do an analysis of their own salaries and expenses to determine the increase in salaries and expenses they have got over the years. I cannot afford to go off to foreign fields. Of course the vast majority of the press do not resort to that kind of tactic. I have not gone back to my constituents since these increases were announced. I will go back there tonight and I will be attacked because of the impression created that we have got a 20 per cent increase at a time when the rest of the workers will get only a 6 per cent increase. The Minister acted judiciously in arriving at that low rate of increase in the Public Service.

I could say much more but the Minister wants to wind up before Question Time. I congratulate the Minister for having the courage of his convictions. He had to go to the Parliamentary Party of which I am a member and it is realised that many backbenchers feel they are grossly underpaid. I was getting 12p per mile. Last July I bought a car and already it is registering 38,000 miles. In the job I occupied before entering politics I would run up about 8,000 miles a year. Therefore, I am clocking up more than 24,000 miles more per year because of constituency work, apart from depreciation and wear and tear. In a trade-in the garage owner would not look at my car because he knows the treatment a politician's car gets. Therefore, fore, if I wanted to purchase a car in 12 months it would cost me £3,500 to £4,000. How could I do that on the income I have? That is a typical case of what rural Deputies have to contend with. I was getting between 14p and 15p a mile travelling expenses. I have to take my chances on the road and I have had many narrow escapes but Thank God I have survived. These things are not taken into account. For instance, we have to be here for divisions. I will conclude by expressing my resentment at the unbalanced reporting by some members of the press.

Minister for the Public Service (Mr. Boland)

The views expressed by Deputies during the debate have put in perspective the measure before us. I hope it has clarified for the general public and our friends in the media the intentions behind the legislation. The most important provision will ensure that in future Members of Parliament and the Judiciary will receive at the same time and only at the same level the percentage increases given in Public Service Pay Agreements. That is all the Bill seeks to do. The intention is to restore Deputies and Senators to the position they were in in June 1981, a position which has been steadily eroded through the non-application of Public Service Pay Agreements in that period.

That position is totally at variance with the concept of the Devlin Review Body in regard to higher remuneration in the public sector in 1972 and 1979. Those recommendations were accepted by the Government but, unfortunately, not implemented in the latter period. I suspect one of the reasons for non-implementation was that it is a cumbersome method whereby orders had to be laid on the Table of the House for at least 21 sitting days before they could be implemented. The length of time and the comments of the public during that time meant that it often appeared as if Deputies had been given a succession of increases when they were still awaiting the belated application of pay agreements which the general public and the Civil Service had already got.

In 1981 and 1982 we had minority Governments and the difficulties of those Governments served to compound the issues and the Governments of the day were persuaded not to make the necessary orders of Public Service-type agreements. I must confess that I was a member of one of those Governments, in 1981 and early 1982, and though a formal decision was not taken by the Government I can say, on the basis of informal discussions, that it was clearly our intention to introduce legislation of this type to rectify the difficulties in applying the different pay rounds to parliamentarians. If it had been done then, perhaps some of the ill-founded criticism which we have heard this week would not have been forthcoming because the provisions of the 1981 agreement would have applied and would have been paid automatically to Members of Parliament and the Judiciary.

I will deal with a number of the points made by Deputies. I appreciate the measure of support outlined by the Opposition Chief Whip, Deputy Ahearn. He expressed the wholehearted support of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party. Later he said it was the policy of Fianna Fáil to try to achieve what is in this legislation. With some exceptions, all speakers were in general agreement with the provisions of the Bill.

Deputy Kelly made a contribution which, as always from the Deputy, was both interesting and a little more entertaining than contributions by other speakers. I agreed with much of what he said regarding the misconceptions about the work of parliamentarians. He referred in particular to the costs that fall on Members of Parliament in relation to by-elections and said that perhaps the present system which has grown up during the years ought not to be continued because it is not in the best interests of the parliamentary system.

I agree with the Deputy's point of view. There is an imminent by-election, thank goodness in a constituency close to Leinster House. It is almost certain that in the next three weeks this House will be in a state of virtual paralysis while all the Members will be required to give their attendance and their attention to the Dublin Central constituency. Whatever the result, it will not have any real effect on the overall balance of the parties in the House. It will, of course, have the usual effect of allowing political analysts a spate of orgasms for three weeks or so in determining which particular trends or movements in half a percentage point will allow them to forecast with uncanny accuracy who will be in Government in this country for the next 200 years. I rather suspect that the over-analysis of one sample of the electorate taken in mid-term of any Government in one particular part of the country, the result of which may very well be based on particular local circumstances, the strength of local candidates or the circumstances in which the vacancy occurred, quite apart from the organisational ability from time to time of one party or another or the fact that one candidate might have been better than another mean that the results of by-elections do not very often accurately reflect the mood of the population in general. To apply their result as interpreting what the result of the next five general elections will be is rather foolish and, in retrospect, has been shown to be fallacious.

The more important thing is that the business of Parliament, politicians and the service which politicians give to their constituents comes almost to a standstill and depending on what part of the country the by-election happens to be in the more of a standstill there will be. If, as Deputy Kelly suggests, there is a reason for us to examine now whether that system is in the best interests of Parliament or whether we ought not to have a fairly fundamental re-examination of the system of filling casual vacancies which occur in the period between one general election and another then that is a debate which the House or the Committee on Procedure and Privileges could very usefully have.

The Deputy also outlined his feelings on the distinction that should be made between the service of a full-time TD in this House and the service of others — he instanced very fairly his own position — who have other sources of income. While saying that he could not agree that they should be paid a differential salary, a point of view with which I have some sympathy, he suggested that some method should be devised to achieve a situation where those TDs with no other source of income are better recompensed than those who are not. I examined this question in some detail over the last few months. It poses particular difficulties. If you look at the possibility of paying different parliamentarians different levels of salary based on whether they have other occupations you appear to be rather in violation of the principle that all Members are elected to perform the same duties on behalf of their constituents, that constituents would not expect different levels of support or work rate from their elected Members, and that the encouragement of different levels of support, attendance or performance on the basis of different levels of payment ought not to be introduced by a differential system of payments based on other income of Members. Deputy Kelly suggested that instead there should be an examination of the tax element system, that a disadvantageous system of taxing the people through using particularly high tax bands should be introduced. That may be possible. Yesterday in the course of an interview I expressed my support in principle for the concept of some system that would help full-time Members who have not any other income.

I have certain reservations about this, one of which was expressed very trenchantly by Deputy Bell. It was refreshing to hear, living adjacent to the wee county, the particular tones of County Louth speak in such realistic, down to earth and sensible terms. One of the points made by Deputy Bell was that people elect to this House those whom they know have other incomes and that the choice lies in the hands of the electorate. If they do not want to elect those who have other professions or incomes they have that choice. I believe that the constituents of Dublin South are a wide collection of people. If the people choose in their wisdom to consistently re-elect Deputy Kelly it is on the basis that they are prepared to accept that despite his other commitments and income they want him to represent their point of view in this House. Is it the obligation of Government or of this House to decide that consequently we should pay him less in recompense?

Mr. Kelly

I must confess that that is a very disarming argument.

Mr. Boland

It would be equally difficult and, perhaps, wrong if, through implementation of some system like that, we dissuaded not someone with the commitment of Deputy John Kelly but that we dissuaded people from different professions or occupations who had particular expertise and experience from becoming Members of the House because of the introduction of a taxation system that was so penal as to make the work rate and the enormous work burden, which every speaker has referred to, so unattractive that we could, through that system, begin to devise a House which became non-representative of one particular sector of the economy. This House, like many Parliaments, has many considerable failings. A number of them have been remedied and attempts have been made to rectify them in recent times. This House, with all its failings, represents a fair cross-section of the Irish community. We are a rather strange race and we have people with many different points of view from different social backgrounds, but the Dáil Chamber has normally been a fair micro-image of the community at large. Long may it be so.

This would be a bad Chamber if all the 166 Deputies were university professors, but it would be equally a bad Chamber if all the 166 Deputies were people with a pass B Comm. degree who had no other possible occupations if their constituents did not consider them worthy to be elected to this House. It would be equally unrepresentative if all were farmers, trade unionists or retired. We need to ensure that there is a fair balance of representation of the different sectors of the community, people of different ages and income brackets. It is very difficult to try to allow that system to operate and to introduce some form of differential along the lines suggested by Deputy Kelly. I agree in principle with the proposal and, if it can be devised, it should be implemented. I do not think it is necessarily the duty, as was suggested by Deputy Mac Giolla, of the Government to devise that system. Deputy Mac Giolla did not seem to understand the concept of the Devlin review body. That is perhaps understandable as he is a Member of this House a very short time. The Devlin review body operated in 1972 and in 1978 and reported in 1979 to advise independently on the appropriate salary structure for those on senior salary levels in the public service. It is rather ironic that one of the groups included are Senators, who benefit from the implementation of a clause designed for low paid workers in a pay agreement in 1981.

The duty of an independent review body ought to be to advise whether it is feasible, equitable and correct for some revised structure like that to be introduced. When next we set up the review body, as I indicated in my speech, it is my intention to give a much wider remit to the review body, because last time their remit, basically in regard to parliamentarians, related only to salary. I believe it should relate to all of the conditions involved in being a Member, including the sort of points raised in this debate today. I expect that the House would welcome an independent group, such as the Devlin Review Body, the Shanley review body in 1937 or the bodies that have been set up at various times, representing others outside this House, who could look dispassionately at this situation and recommend, to be the vehicle to recommend change.

Debate adjourned.