asked the Minister for the Public Service if, in view of the increasing public criticism of the present method of paying Ministerial pensions, especially the fact that Ministers can qualify for pensions after three years and the fact that ministerial pensions are also paid in some cases to persons in receipt of Dáil, European Parliament or judicial salaries, the Government intend to make any change to the present pension system; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Ministerial Pensions.
16.
An undertaking in regard to a general reference to the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector was included in the pay proposals at present being considered by public service groups. In accordance with practice, such a reference would cover office holders and parliamentarians as well as higher public servants generally. As I announced in the Seanad on 12 March 1986, the Government intend that, when such general reference is being made, the review body will be asked specifically to consider the question of office holders' pensions.
When does the Minister expect the reference to this body to be made? Can he indicate if the secretariat which was vacant for some time has been filled and, if not, when it is proposed to fill it in order to enable the review to be carried out?
This arises in the context of a general reference to the review body which arises out of the pay proposals. The Government decided that it was in that context that a specific reference to this question would be made. I cannot be exact as to when this will take place but the Deputy can rest assured that there will be no delay on the part of the Government and that there will be no delay either in the matter of the provision of full secretariat facilities.
Can the Minister explain exactly what he means by a general reference? What does that depend on? Does it depend on the present attitude of the public service unions to the proposals before them and to whether those proposals are accepted? If so, can the Minister say what will be the Government's attitude if the proposals being considered by the public service unions are not put before this body? In such circumstances would the Government go ahead and refer this question of pensions, allowances and so on to Members of Parliament to the body?
As I have mentioned, the reference to the Review Body on Higher Remuneration arises from a proposal put in the context of the general pay proposals at present being considered by the Public Service groups. I am anxious and hopeful that these proposals will be favourably received. It is in that context that reference to that review body is being made. The decision was made by the Government in the context of that reference specifically to ask the review body to consider the question of office holders' pensions. I cannot at this stage deal with a hypothetical question that might arise in circumstances such as were pointed out by the Deputy. Obviously, all I can say is that, in the event of such circumstances arising, the matter would have to be reconsidered by the Government.
Would the Minister not accept that this question of ministerial pensions, in particular, has arisen quite separately from that of public service pay? Certainly the impression which I got from the original announcement was that this issue of ministerial pensions was being referred as a specific item to the review body. Would the Minister now tell the House that this question will be referred to the review body as a matter of urgency, irrespective of the outcome of the public service pay talks?
We should be clear when talking about this question. First, it is quite proper to say, as has always been my opinion, that when a question of this nature arises it is not for me, or indeed anybody in office, to be judge and jury of his or her own case. I have always felt it to be appropriate in the past that questions of this nature should be looked at independently. It is important to recall, in case there is any suggestion that this type of question originated only in the last year or two, that the background goes back to the year 1937 when the Shanley Committee examined this whole question and following their report and recommendation, this procedure was put in place by an Act of 1938.
Since then the general question of remuneration has been looked at twice, again independently by the review body. It is no harm to point out that the review body made it clear, when they last looked at the question of remuneration for Ministers, that they took into account, in making recommendations on remuneration, that there was a pension scheme or superannuation scheme in existence. From that point of view the system has been set up independently, has been reviewed independently, and that is the right approach. As I mentioned earlier, I am hopeful in the context of the pay proposals that the review body will be in operation pretty quickly. I am glad to see the review body having the opportunity to examine this whole question, specifically the point raised by the Deputy.
It is all on its way out.
This is a very wide ranging subject. First, I welcome the Government decision to refer the matter to the review body. The quicker there is a reply from the review body, the better. Normally the Devlin committee reply fairly promptly. Have the review body received specific terms of reference in this case and, if so, would the Minister put them on the record of the House? Perhaps that has been done in the Seanad, but it should be on the record of this House.
Secondly — and this is the kernel of the matter — in the statement made by the Government last week reference was made to pension and taxation issues and also in the context of salaries. The whole history of the case must be taken into account. In the decision made, there was a link with an alternative to incremental salaries. Has the Minister asked, in the terms of reference, that this matter should be taken in the context of incremental salaries? If pensions were abolished in a straightforward manner, which perhaps is desirable if it is what the public wish, they would have to be replaced. There is no section of the population which gives the same salary to one person with 20 years' experience as to another on the first day, with the exception of politicians. It is very important that any review body looking at the question will not take it in isolation, as Deputy De Rossa has said. It was never set up as a system in isolation. It is part of a structure of replacement for an incremental salary system. Any review must take into account the pay, conditions, salaries and pensions of Deputies.
You are getting into a debate.
It is not a debate. A review body is being set up and it is important that it examine the whole issue, just not 5 per cent of it. Would the Minister make it quite clear what the review body's terms of reference are?
The exact terms of reference have not yet been settled. The proper approach would be for us to ask the review body to look at the remuneration in the overall, fullest sense. It is also important to bring to the attention of the House the fact that when the review body looked in the past at these aspects of remuneration and superannuation for office holders, they accumulated a large body of evidence and much detail about comparative figures. I anticipate that it would not be a terribly onerous job for them to bring this information up to date.
On the point raised by Deputy Ahern, it is quite important to reiterate that at the time when remuneration recommendations were last made they were made on the basis that there was in existence a superannuation pension scheme. It was made clear at that time that, were it not for that fact, the remuneration proposals would have been considerably higher. I feel that the review body, which has always consisted of people of the highest standing in the community generally accepted as having no commitments in respect of, or significant affiliation to, any of the groups within their remit, can look at the question in its broadest sense and come up with recommendations which are independent and seen to be so. We then are not judge and jury of our case. We have an independent body to make their recommendations.
A final supplementary question.
I agree, by and large, with what the Minister has said and with most of what Deputy Ahern has said. When I argue for the issue to be taken separately I am asking for it to be taken separately from the present public service pay talks, negotiations, or deals. I welcome the fact that it has been referred to the review body. However, I am anxious that the issue should be dealt with urgently. The Minister is aware of the widespread concern about the manner in which pensions are paid to former Ministers of this House. That is of keen concern to many people outside this House who have not received even one week's wages. I am asking if the Minister would agree that the question of remuneration, allowances, pensions and all their various facets should be referred to this review body as a matter of urgency, separately from and completely independent of the public service pay talks and negotiations that are going on at present.
I am not sure that I could accept the Deputy's suggestion in that regard even though I share his feelings and would like to see these issues settled quickly. The Deputy should bear in mind that the reference to the review body is to consider the pay of the higher echelons of the public service generally and it is in accordance with that that the reference to cover office holders, parliamentarians and higher public servants will be looked at. I am not sure if it would be wise to separate the two and I am also hopeful that the pay proposals made will be accepted which will enable the review body to go into operation quite quickly.
In drafting the terms of reference could the Minister say whether two anomalies will be taken into account? One is that a Member of this House who has 20 years service, who may have experience chairing committees and so on, is on the same salary as a person who comes in here newly elected. I should also like the Minister to take into account what happens to all other categories of civil servants and those in the public service who receive a pension from a separate job and who are drawing a salary or wage from the public service. There are thousands of people in that category inside and outside the House — not in the Chamber — and throughout the public service. We are not talking about Members of the Oireachtas but of many thousands of people involved. I hope the review body will examine the right issues, not those which some people would like them to concentrate on.
The points raised by Deputy Ahern are valid and I expect the review body to take them into account in addition to the other matters mentioned.