asked the Minister for the Public Service if, in view of the Government's repeated statements on the need for reductions in the public expenditure, he will introduce legislation to end the practice of paying ministerial pensions to persons who are also drawing salaries as Members of the Oireachtas.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Ministerial Pensions.
9.
I would refer the Deputy to my reply to Questions Nos. 33 and 34 (columns 1149 to 1152 of the Official Report) on 2 November 1983.
This is not a satisfactory reply to a specific question. The Minister should answer it or the Ceann Comhairle should agree to have it on the Order Paper for next Tuesday. This is not satisfactory. The Minister has no right to come in here and refer to a report of months ago. How are we expected to ask supplementaries?
As has been said I am sure hundreds if not thousands of times from this Chair, the Chair has no control over the answering of questions.
That is a new departure.
It is not a new departure.
Can the Minister indicate to me how many Deputies in this House who are in receipt of Dáil salaries are also in receipt of ministerial pensions?
I have not got that information. It was not sought in the context of the question which was about policy rather than specific individuals.
Is the Minister aware that in the accounts issued in June, 25 Deputies are listed as being in receipt of ministerial pensions? In view of that, and in view of the Government's policy to restrict public service pay, and to restrict increases in all sorts of social services and health services, does he think it is reasonable that pensions of this nature should be paid while Dáil salaries are also being received?
As I pointed out before, these allowances are paid on foot of a recommendation made by a committee which involved not only Members of the Dáil but also persons from outside who examined this entire question and made a report in 1937 which was acted on in 1938. The reasons they advanced then are at least as valid today as they were at that time.
For whatever reason I do not know, the Minister continues to evade the questions I am putting to him. Does he agree that, in view of the Government's policy to cut back in all sorts of social areas and on public spending, it is unreasonable for Dáil Deputies to be in receipt of ministerial pensions?
Over the past number of years I have received a number of representations, and suggestions are occasionally made, that pensions which are payable to people within the public sector should be altered, or reduced, or removed from them. I have considered that as a general question. I do not think it fair that people in receipt of some superannuation benefit which they became entitled to on foot of their service should have that benefit removed from them at some stage during its course of payment. Apart from the question of policy, there are other considerations which would have to be taken into account.
In view of the Minister's reply——
What reply?
Is the Minister saying that Dáil Deputies who have pensions from other public service appointments can sit in this House and he cannot interfere, or is he saying he will have a separate policy with regard to ministerial pensions and he will not have a policy regarding pensions from other public service sources?
I am not sure that I follow the Deputy correctly. What I have been saying is that, where people are in receipt of a public service pension following a qualification period for entitlement, it would not be my intention to make a change in that arrangement. If the Deputy is asking whether there is a distinction between those who are former officer-holders and Members of the House receiving pension, and people who have worked in other parts of the public sector and are now Members of the House and receiving a pension, there is no distinction. Former Ministers or former officer-holders are not the only people who are Members of this House and are in receipt of pensions from the State or the public sector.
Would the Minister agree that a Dáil Deputy's responsibility and ministerial responsibility are different? The pension Deputy De Rossa is referring to is for a job which a person has actually left. It is related to the years of service in that post. It is unreasonable to try to equalise the two pensions. It is not a case of somebody being paid for years of service as a Deputy. If the Minister were to follow Deputy De Rossa's line of argument it could also be said that any person who is a Member of this House and has a pension funded in part or fully by the State should lose that? Ministerial responsibility is different from the responsibility of a member of a semi-State commercial body.
Office-holders are paid from the Department to which they were assigned. Members of the Dáil are paid from the Vote for the Houses of the Oireachtas. The salary set for performance in office is set by the Review Body on Higher Remuneration who made it clear in their report that in setting salary levels they took into account the fact that a pension is payable after a certain period of service as an office-holder. In 1937 the committee felt that, among other reasons, it would be reasonable that an amount should be paid to a former officer who was still a Member of the Dáil to encourage such people to remain in the Dáil so that there would be contained within the House a core of personnel with experience of Government whether they were serving on the Opposition Front Bench or on the back benches in Government or in opposition.
In relation to the Deputy's second question, it is reasonable to say that, if it were to be suggested that former office-holders should not receive some recognition for their service in office while serving as Members of the Dáil, it could equally be argued that other people in receipt of public service pensions should not receive them either. That has never been suggested. I would not have thought it was now being advanced.
There seems to be confused thinking in the Minister's replies. We are talking about persons who remain Members of this House and who are in receipt of pensions having served as Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries. They are still in the House and they are receiving pensions for serving for four years or thereabouts as Ministers or Ministers of State. We are not talking about persons who left this House and got a pension elsewhere, or a person who served 30 or 40 years in a State company and qualified for a pension.
Has the Deputy a question? He may not make a speech.
After four years as a Minister the person remains in the House and gets a ministerial pension and a Dáil salary. Does the Minister accept that, given Government policy on cutbacks in the public sector and social services, Dáil Deputies should remain in receipt of ministerial pensions? Will he introduce a resolution into the House to alter that scheme? Will he clarify the position regarding a number of MEPs who are also Members of the House and in receipt of ministerial pensions?
That is a separate question.
The Deputy does not seem to appreciate that Members of the House receive payments in respect of the service which they were elected to give as Members of the House. All Members receive the same amount of payment irrespective of their length of service or experience. From the first day he is elected a Deputy receives the same payment as a Deputy who has been a Member for 30 years. The House has considered that on a number of occasions and felt that is the way it should be. Separately a decision was taken 46 or 47 years ago that an additional allowance should be paid separate to a Deputy's allowance when they cease to be Ministers. If they have served the required period they should be paid an additional amount by way of pension in recognition of the fact that they had additional payments as Minister and to encourage them to remain Members of the House. That has been copperfastened by the Review Body on Higher Remuneration which suggested that they would recommend a far higher level of payment to Ministers whilst they served as Ministers, were there not this provision of a pension after a period of years available. If the Deputy is suggesting that Members of the House should receive no other income from any other source, that is a different matter. I do not think he can draw the distinction between people who have served in ministerial office and those who have served in the public sector and who are then elected to this House. Let us be clear about this. What Deputy De Rossa is trying to do in a very roundabout way is to attack the concept that former Ministers who are now Members of the House should have public service pensions and defend the idea that the other half of his parliamentary party, Deputy Mac Giolla, can be a Member of this House and still be in receipt of a pension from his former employment. That is precisely what Deputy De Rossa is trying to defend. He cannot have it both ways.
I shall allow one question from Deputy Mac Giolla. Question Time is over.
I do not want the Minister to go through every Member of the House and tell every Member of the House what every other Member is doing and his or her source of income. The Minister is totally ignoring the point that pensions for people——
That is not a question.
Excuse me, I am asking the Ceann Comhairle to ask — the Minister is endeavouring to——
I cannot ask the Minister anything.
I am asking the Ceann Comhairle to accept the fact that the Minister is endeavouring to mix up the question that I was asking.
If Deputy Mac Giolla can frame what he is saying as a question, I shall allow it.
I have one question. Can the Minister see any relation between the ministerial pension of a person after three or four years in office who continues to be a Member of the House and a pension to a person, from whatever office or job they held, after a period of 30 or 40 years? Does the Minister see any distinction or difference between them?
I see a very distinct difference that in the particular case about which the Deputies are talking but which they do not want to specify by name, they are talking about somebody in a secure and guaranteed employment for 30 or 40 years, had he not opted for early retirement——
I am not talking about the case of Irish Shipping.
——as opposed to those who are in one of the highest risk occupations in this or any other democracy, that of Minister of State.
The remaining questions will appear on next Tuesday's Order Paper.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the fact that on Tuesday evening, 20 November, the Minister for Defence gave false and misleading information to this House pertaining to the appointment of a civilian person in the Army——
I will communicate with the Deputy. I am not going to allow a speech on the matter.
——that this person was not recommended by the committee, but only by one member——
A Deputy
By the Chairman.
I shall communicate with Deputy Treacy.