I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
I wish to share my time with Deputy Molloy and Deputy Harney.
Private Members' Business. - Oireachtas and Ministerial Pensions Bill, 1987: Second Stage.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
By moving this Bill here this evening I wish, on behalf of the Progressive Democrats, to give notice that it represents the first step we intend taking in the area of parliamentary reform for which there is an urgent need.
The Oireachtas and Ministerial Pensions Bill, 1987, proposes to prohibit the payment of pensions under the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Acts, 1938 to 1983, and the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Acts 1938 to 1983 to the holders of certain offices in the State. The effect of this will be to end the situation which has long since been anomalous, and seen by the public at large to be so, where two incomes from the same source are being drawn by one person in respect of the same or similar employment. This situation has been recognised by the Progressive Democrats from their inception. It represents the type of privilege which politicians have, which is indefensible outside the political arena. It divides those who legislate from those whom they are supposed to serve.
This notion that politicians are insulated from reality and are, therefore, not serving the people has been growing steadily over the last ten to 15 years. Many thousands of people felt alienated from political life because of the unrealistic aura surrounding it, until the party of which I am a member was founded. What encouraged me, and many thousands of others also, was the acceptance of reality as the starting point for the party. One of the realities most keenly felt by the public at large was a cynical disregard for most of what the leaders of this nation had to say.
I am one of those who wishes to tackle the problem at its source — to look at the institutions of State, how they are run, their relevance and how the restoration of public confidence in them can be achieved. I am not one of that band of people, including unfortunately some Deputies in this House, who think that to speak of the ineffectiveness of our Government and Oireachtas, the abuse of privileges and the effective insulation from reality, is to let the side down in some way. Such people could be likened to the "speak no evil, hear no evil, see no evil" brass monkey brigade. Simply because they will not speak about the need to reform, are we all to accept that no reform is needed? The public outside this House, who pay all our salaries and pensions, will not be satisfied with that attitude.
The prohibition on pensions referred to in this Bill will affect a number of sitting Members of this House, including two of my own party. It will also affect the President, judges, MEPs, Senators and some other officers of the State. In individual cases the step we are advocating seems to be pretty harsh. Are we saying that these individuals do not deserve to have their experience and long service recognised? No, we are not. We are saying quite clearly, however, that the payment of pensions in these circumstances per se is not valid, and they should, therefore, be abolished.
The idea here is to right a wrong, to correct an injustice. It is important to realise that while removing the anomalous pensions situation we are not making scapegoats out of TDs. What we want here is fair play both for politicians and for members of the public. We are also saying that wider reforms of the Oireachtas are needed. This would include a reduction in the number of TDs, abolition of the Seanad, restructuring of the work of the Dáil and its committees and a review of the way in which public representatives are paid. In the case of the last mentioned item, it would seem natural and right to this party that length of service and acquired experience would be rewarded, perhaps by way of allowances as in many other employments, State and private.
The essence of the payment of a pension is surely that it commences when the payment of a salary ends. That is where the crux arises here. A Minister or Dáil Deputy or Senator is a public representative. The thread of being a public representative runs right through holding any one of these positions. It is not possible to be both a Senator and a Deputy at the same time but it is, however, possible to be a Minister at the same time as being a Senator or a Deputy.
Being in that Ministerial role does not alter the basic status of the person — he or she remains a public representative. When he or she ceases being a Minister that status remains, the job continues. Yet we pay a pension to that person even if they continue to carry on the same basic role as before. The role of being a Minister certainly adds extra responsibilities which demand extra remuneration, which should cease with the lifting of those responsibilities.
In Britain, ex Ministers receive no pension from their former role if they revert to ordinary public representative status. They do, however, receive an addition to their pension when they retire at 65 which recognises the extra responsibilities they held. Extra allowances are paid to a certain number of front bench spokesmen in each party which recognises their extra responsibilities and expenses.
Why have we devised the system we have? Surely public cynicism is fuelled by this knowledge and by the knowledge that it is the politicians themselves who were responsible for awarding each other these benefits? No wonder I often hear constituents saying that Dáil Éireann is in reality a private club which makes rules to protect its own privileges and position. I want to see that changed.
The Progressive Democrats want the ordinary people in the street, who do not know much about what goes on in Government, to feel that their trust in their public representative is generally well founded. That will not happen unless we set out to win that trust fairly and squarely. We will not, however, win that trust if we continue to set ourselves apart from other income earners. Employees in other walks of life on equivalent incomes cannot get a pension until retirement, irrespective of merit or experience. They are rightly unfavourably disposed towards their public representatives receiving such pensions.
When we were campaigning in the last general election many thousands of people whom we met praised us for our stand on this issue. Even supporters of other parties, while continuing to support that party, agreed that the pension situation was wrong and should be changed. The issue has come to be in the public's eye the epitome of the abuse of power which the man or woman in the street believes politicians indulge in. How can we, as the leaders of the community, demand that the black economy be eliminated and social welfare abuses be stamped out when we have acknowledged anomalies in our own system of paying ourselves, about which we have done nothing.
This issue is one of leadership. It is one of restoring faith in the political system through its politicians. There will be a saving from the passing of this Bill. For the last year for which figures are available, the amount spent on pensions which would be eliminated under the provisions set out here was over £200,000.
The allocation in the Estimates published yesterday for next year's expenditure showed an increase in the provision for Oireachtas pensions of £151,000, which is partly explained by the need to make payments to former Oireachtas Members now holding public or judicial office. The cost of those pensions, together with ministerial pensions paid to sitting Oireachtas Members, could have paid for restoration of the Ombudsman's Office's allocation to its position after the last budget, now being cut by a further 17 per cent. That office, which should be seen as the citizen's bulwark against injustice in the administration of government can be compared in its role with that of the person who oversees Government expenditure, the Comptroller and Auditor General. In the light of those cuts, ministerial and Oireachtas pensions fade into insignificance. If, for example, we had made the changes we are proposing, we might have been able to retain, too, the National Social Services Board, the AntiPoverty programme and many others.
The money saved is not the central issue, but the message emanating from this House is. Politics is, in a way, on trial. Will the political elite defend its privileges or accept what the common sense of the ordinary person in the street can see, i.e. that ministerial pensions are an example of politicians looking after No. 1?
That leadership which must be shown on this issue by the members of this House must not stop at this. If Members here want to carry the citizens of this country with them in the measures needed to bring about economic prosperity, we must reform this House to make it more efficient, effective and value for money.
As I have said, the Bill before us is the first step. I would see, as would my party, an urgent need to reduce the number of TDs, an exercise which should be carried out alongside the next electoral boundary revision. This is perfectly feasible within the terms laid down by the Constitution. We are heavily over represented in our Oireachtas compared with many other countries. This leads to a trivialising of the role of the public representative and draws him or her into a web of weaving strokes for constituents, instead of wrangling with legislative matters and issues of national importance.
This should be dealt with in the context of a full review and revamping of the method of payment of TDs. As I have said, this House is where the example on all these points should come from. The Progressive Democrats have used as a motive for action the phrase, "Leading by Example", on a number of issues.
I wish to state to this House to-night that the Leader of our party, Deputy O'Malley and the chairman of our party, Deputy Bobby Molloy made known today their independent decisions to that parliamentary party that they are voluntarily giving up the ministerial pensions which they receive. They have made this very difficult decision because they believe, first, that the principle of the Bill we are proposing is correct. They wish to put all possible force behind the making of that case, and show their abhorrence of the continuation of a practice which the public have rightly condemned.
This voluntary relinquishing of their pensions, which in personal terms is no easy decision to take, makes a clear statement. That statement is that they believe reform should start here, in the heart of the Dáil. It is a significant gesture acknowledging the hard decisions which face thousands, and hundreds of thousands of people every day in this State. Where do our opponents think reform should start? Who do they think should lead the way?
Do they not think that on a day when the general public are coming to terms with the shock news of £485 million worth of spending cuts, when many are worried about basic services like primary education and when many public servants are worried about the future of their jobs, this House should show by example not just its willingness to share but also to give a lead to the public by being prepared to take less?
We in the Progressive Democrats are leading the way by introducing this measure as a first step in Oireachtas reform.
Another area we should reform is the Seanad. It serves no particular role, despite the intentions when it was established. It is still searching for that role and no amount of dumping of legislation on it and making it sit for much longer sittings than the Dáil will help it to find that role. We do not need the second House. What we need is an active, effective, modern, businesslike Dáil. This would serve the country far better than having two inert old-fashioned Houses, neither of which is effective in what it sets out to do.
A third area which is positively scandalous is the existence of 15 Ministers of State. We proposed a reduction to seven last year, and that they should serve particularly in Departments which have a large proportion of their work with the EC. The practice of appointing so many is seen by the public at large for what it is, "jobs for the boys". Neither did the recent debacle between the Minister for Agriculture and his junior Minister do anything to enhance the standing of this breed of Ministers.
The matter of taxation of TDs, which gives rise to many misconceptions — particularly the one that they do not pay tax at all — is another which must be tackled. Not only should TDs pay tax, which they definitely do, but they must be seen to pay on a par with other PAYE taxpayers, which at the moment they do not. It is another example of allowing themselves to be insulated from the reality outside this House. This party have taken the lead by introducing this Bill in the Dáil. They published it last year, pursued the matter to the point where in the first session of the sitting of this Dáil we are bringing it forward for a Second Reading. This party have led by example in that case. Our individual members have led by their example.
I commend this Bill to the House and I look forward to receiving support for what are eminently obvious anomalies. The Bill is a start in the proper reform of the Oireachtas generally.
In reply to a Parliamentary Question put down today by one of the Deputies of the Progressive Democrats, information was given listing the names of all Members and ex-Members who are in receipt of ministerial pensions. This debate was well signalled in the media and, through official channels, to each Member of the House and it is very significant that of all the Members of the House who are in receipt of ministerial pensions only one has deemed it fit to attend this debate, the former Ceann Comhairle, Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick. On all the other benches I cannot see any other Member who is in receipt of a pension even though we know there is a large number of them in all the other parties.
For some time past, I have been convinced that there is no moral justification for continuing payment of Ministers' pensions to ex-Ministers who continue to serve as Dáil Deputies at a time when 250,000 people face permanent unemployment, 40,000 people have to emigrate annually and 10,000 people have been thrown out of their jobs by Government decree. It is surely immoral to expect these people, who have so little control over their destiny, to suffer while we tolerate excess and wasteful expenditure in the payment of Ministers' pensions and maintain 15 Ministers of State costing millions in expenses and in duplication. Indeed, one Minister of State has a Department which spends about £6 million on schemes and yet it costs £1 million to administer that Department.
How can this House ask that these Estimates be accepted when those who are administering the cuts are not prepared to apply any cutbacks that affect themselves? Let those who will answer. It is not just idealistic youth who are cynical of politicians. The mass of our people are equally cynical when they observe the lavish expenditure of those in high places while our country is on the brink of bankruptcy. The great void in political life is leadership. The decision I have made will present serious personal problems for me but it is important to remind the House that giving has no real meaning unless it hurts.
I join in sympathy with those others who must suffer because of decisions made by this Government and I believe that it is a time to share. I wish to confirm, therefore, to Dáil Éireann what my colleague, Deputy Anne Colley, has said — that is, that I intend notifying the Paymaster General to cease payment of ministerial pension in respect of periods served by me as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education from July 1969 to May 1970, as Minister for Local Government from May 1970 to March 1973 and as Minister for Defence from July 1977 to December 1979, this decision to take effect from 1 January 1988.
I support the introduction of this Bill and I appeal to all Members of this House in all parties to give it very serious consideration. It is a measure which is part of an approach that this party is seeking to adopt towards the need for a reform in this House and it focuses principally on one specific area of abuse. It is fundamentally wrong for people in active employment simultaneously to drawing a salary for that employment to draw a pension in respect of earlier service within that same employment. That abuse is particularly pernicious when it is one which we have established and maintained here under a general cloak of parliamentary secrecy.
It is not that many of the people involved are making a lot of money out of this anomaly; it is not that there is a great deal of money to be made out of politics generally, but it is that this House, above any other institution, must give example and that example has to be such as to imbue in the public absolute confidence in and respect for this House and all of its Members. It is not just anomalous, it is socially profoundly unjust that people who have worked for decades in the public service — for example, in organisations such as CIE — are being asked to exist on pensions of a few pounds when people who have served three years in this House and are still young men and women are drawing substantial pensions arising from that service, bearing in mind that all of us volunteered for public life in the first instance.
This Bill seeks to address that question. We are not saying that we in this party have any particular monopoly of wisdom or virtue but that in a peculiar way we have a mandate for pressing for this change because it was part of our policy and, unlike the example of some other parties, we have no intention of reneging on that which was fundamental in the election which we fought and the support which we won in that context.
I do not apologise for drawing particular attention to the example given by my two senior colleagues, Deputies O'Malley and Molloy. I do not wish to embarrass them in any way but that example of voluntarily relinquishing what I suspect is now in many ways essential to both of them is an example which must move all of us and which, I hope, in due course will be recognised among the public as probably one of the most significant and certainly one of the most selfless acts seen in this House since its institution. It is not about words but about deeds and there is a cost and a pain to it.
It has been motivated predominantly by the consciousness of those Deputies of the trauma and the distress at present prevalent in our community arising directly out of Government policy and arising specifically out of our peception that there is unprecedented hardship and difficulty for many thousands of people and that somehow the people in this House must reach out and say to people who are suffering that kind of trauma: "we understand, we sympathise and this is one small way in which we sympathise with you and want to act with you in bringing about an improved and a more just situation".
That example is the beacon to all of us, myself included, and to the general public as to how to conduct ourselves both in this House and outside it. The message surely is that we cannot bring about social or economic progress, we cannot lead by example unless each one of us is willing to give a little, or in this case perhaps give a great deal. Deputy Colley referred to other abuses and unquestionably they exist. The summary of that whole phalanx of abuse and privilege is that never has the public perception of this House been lower in the general esteem. If we are to address that problem, then this evening marks a watershed in our approach to it.
I have no doubt there will be speeches from the Minister and perhaps the Opposition parties giving reasons this should not happen. There will be references to the Bill not being correctly drafted and we will be told that the whole area is being examined and that we will wait and see. I do not want to hear those excuses because that is all they are. We are sick and tired of being told that matters are being looked into and being reviewed.
I want to address specifically the Opposition amendment put forward in the name of Deputy Noonan. To put it as charitably as I can, it is derisory. It does not even address the comprehension in the original Bill. This amendment refers to the Gleeson Committee who are dealing with aspects of remuneration for Oireachtas Members. Our Bill is about many other things too. It is about this abuse by not only people who are Members of this House but also Members of the European Parliament, those who serve on the Judiciary and elsewhere, including the first citizen of this country — not that we want in any way to draw him into this personally.
This amendment does not even attempt to do justice to the broad tenets of our Bill. It seems to be a form of knee jerk and cowardly reaction to an initiative which is not just necessary and essential but is bold and courageous. We have spent the past 12 months trying to introduce this matter in the House and have witnessed the rules of this House being rewritten systematically and over a period of time to exclude us from raising anything in the House. Now we are being told that a committee will present proposals to us in due course.
Some of us who have been in this House for some time have not a great deal of confidence in extra parliamentary committees. We want the Minister to say this evening that this Bill is right. We are not too pushed about the drafting of it: we are quite willing to discuss that, that is flexible. However, we are not willing to deal with the essence of it which is that it is wrong for people who are still active in public life to draw pensions arising from earlier service in public life. It is no more complex than that. It is as sharply focused as that and no amount of prevarication, ambiguity or procrastination can detract from that. That is the essence of it.
There are many people in public life and many people associated with former office holders here. There are many people drawing pensions who are entitled to them and who deserve and need them. In due course we will see this party putting forward submissions relating to the broad area of remuneration for TDs. There are things that are wrong. It is wrong that somebody who is in the House for 20 years and who has a breadth and depth of experience at a number of levels should find himself or herself on the same level of remuneration as somebody who walked in here the first day.
Bearing in mind that the Bill in the way it has been presented by Deputy Molloy and Deputy O'Malley, has implications for families and for standards of living, aspects of security of this job need response and treatment. The salary a TD earns is by no means outlandish, but taken in the context of the public perception in general and based on areas of relative advantage and privilege which some Members enjoy, there is need for wide reform.
As Deputy Colley said, this, therefore, is only the first of a series of measures which we will seek to advance. We must revise the system and structure in this House and reduce the number of Members. The representation is outlandish for a country the population of which could probably be, if not lost, certainly obscured in a city like London. It is preposterous that there is a level of bureaucracy and administration through government, central and local, all over the country which involves 40 local authorities, eight health boards, numerous VECs and a multi-tiered layer of expensive, unnecessary and quite often predominantly bureaucratic administration, most of it unnecessary and much of it obscuring the essential thrust of what those bodies and organisations are supposed to do. We are for sweeping away much of that. We cannot throw out everything overnight and nobody wishes to do so, but think, for instance, of our hospitals where a nurse cannot even make a phone call, while the expenses of the health boards and the officials working within them came last year to some £13.5 million. The examples of overlapping, duplication, waste and fraud clearly exemplified in page after page of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General with reference to areas of public administration are a recurring theme in his reports and are not addressed by this Government nor are they a feature of any reformist approach by the Government.
Therefore, there is a ripe and fertile field for us to deal with when we come to reform in this House. This evening we are trying to bring the first element of that reform into focus and to tell people that it is not that we claim any credit for that but that in our hearts we believe that it is wrong that people employed in this House should simultaneously draw pensions for three or a few more years' service, many of them presumably with most of their parliamentary and public careers before them. I would like those who do not propose to support our Bill to address, without waffling or ambiguity, the question of whether they agree with that principle. Do they support the concept of people, some of them in the ranks of other parties, some of them young men and women, getting a salary for their present job plus a pension arising from having given three years service in this House?
Not alone is this Bill timely and essential but if we are to redress the slide towards abject cynicism among the public in general arising from the broad view they have that all of us in here are essentially some kind of secret society who write our own rules, pay ourselves what we wish, have a whole range of hidden perks, subsidised restaurants and a litany of advantages over the ordinary citizen, we must deal honestly and fairly with each of those points. There is truth in some of them. It is not an answer to say that others have similar advantages, that perhaps the restaurants in the public service generally or in Departments have bigger subsidies and provide cheaper meals. That is not what we are asking here. We are seeking to focus on how we can address the essential questions relating to ourselves. We are not asking some committee working behind closed doors, accountable to nobody publicly or otherwise, for the integrity of their report or even to stand over their recommendations. We are saying that this is a job for men and women elected by the people and we are asking people not to funk that. Each of us in his or her heart knows precisely what is needed and that need is to undo what is clearly a profound injustice.
In the list of payees given in reply to a question today were many names, some of people who have served this country extremely well and who are no longer in this House, and none of us would begrudge those men and women that pension. It is at least in part a contributory pension. Others are widows or widowers perhaps of former distinguished public representatives and this Bill is not aimed at those people either. On the contrary, looking through that list today one could not help but have a certain degree of evocative feeling about a number of people who served this House well and who have since, unfortunately, passed on.
Our Bill is aimed at people still in public life and the issue which we choose to incorporate in that first Bill — there will be others — was the simplest, clearest, sharpest focused example of a form of anomaly, to use a tired word, which we could fasten on. We see no complexity about it. I appeal to this House, therefore, not to support under any circumstances the Fine Gael amendment which falls short even of addressing the terms of reference of our Bill. It does not even pretend to deal with the wide compass of our measure. Even if it did, it would still be the same form of ritual delegation to an anonymous review body working privately behind closed doors to which we have become so accustomed here whenever a thorny issue arises, and this is thorny. That amendment is a disservice to the Bill and unworthy of support. I am disappointed that a sincere attempt was not made to address in a comprehensive way the thrust and detail of our Bill. This is not a top of the head Private Members' motion. It is a carefully drafted, legislative proposal over which our party spent many months of consideration in terms of conception and development and the precise drafting of the measure.
In passing I want to say to the Minister for Finance, Deputy MacSharry, that last night I admired his apparently steel-like resolve, the firm jut of the jaw, if he will pardon me for saying so, and the clearsighted approach he took to issues. He exuded a certain sense of control, insight and confidence in his own capacity to do those things which he believes are important. I appeal to that Minister tonight to exude that same sense of leadership and to say to this House: "This Bill is not perfect in every respect but we accept what it seeks to do. We intend to implement what it seeks to do at the earliest opportunity" and tell us precisely how he intends to do that. If he does so he will be doing a very good day's work for this House, this country and himself as Minister for Finance.
In summary, I appeal to all Members not to dig themselves into entrenched positions this evening but to consider this Bill, reflect on it and on the examples that members of this party have given, and to endorse what it is trying to do.
I took careful note of the appeal made by Deputy Keating and whatever steel he has mentioned has not weakened as a result of the appeal. Before I start, lest there be any misunderstanding about some of the things that have been said, I reject the innuendo and the aspersions cast upon former office holders and existing and former Members of this House, when we heard speakers from the Progressive Democrats talk about fraud and abuse, implying that——
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order——
——it may have been as a result of actions by some of those people——
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order, I saw the Minister engaged in conversation with his officials a few moments ago and it was obvious at that time that he thought I said that, when his hearing was slightly defective. I said no such thing. I said specifically, that in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General there were examples. The Minister has obviously not read that report either. I made no such refernce and if I implied it, or the Minister half heard it——
I did not say that. You can read the record.
Only one speaker referred to it, and that was me.
Fraud and abuses were mentioned before Deputy Keating spoke at all. As I have previously indicated in this House, it is not my intention to promote or support legislation designed to end the payment of ministerial and Oireachtas pensions to the holders of certain offices and to sitting Members of the Oireachtas.
Members of the House will be aware that the authority for the payment of pensions to Members of the Oireachtas or of the European Parliament who were office holders and, as a result, are in receipt of pensions in addition to their parliamentary allowances, lies in legislation enacted in accordance with the Constitution. The relevant legislation is the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act, 1938, as subsequently amended. The origin of the Act lies in the acceptance by the Government of the day of the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into Ministerial and other Salaries appointed under warrant dated 4 June 1937, before I was born.
The Committee of Inquiry, which was chaired by Dr. John Shanley, recommended that there should be provision for a pension in the case of any person holding ministerial office for not less than three years. The justification for this recommendation is set out in detail in the report. In essence, the committee felt that such provision would help to reduce the financial sacrifice involved in holding office because of the enforced severance of all active connection by the person concerned with his original occupation or profession and also the near impossibility while in office of providing for the future of himself and his family. The committee also felt that even where it was possible for a person to maintain some degree of linkage with his original occupation, he could still find it extremely difficult on relinquishing office to take up again where he had laid off.
The report then went on to say and I quote:
The severance from his former means of livelihood will often be irremediable and he will be left with no assurance whatever as to the future, although his high position, unlike that attained in other walks of life, is due to concentration on matters concerned with the public interest and public affairs. Experience has shown that the sacrifices involved in taking office as a Minister have been such that unless some remedy be found many persons who might otherwise have been attracted to a political career and whose services would have been most useful to the nation in that sphere may be deterred from accepting office unless provision is made to ensure that their future position is safeguarded. Another consideration that arises, is the desirability of retaining ex Ministers in political life, as their knowledge of affairs and experience of administration must be of great value to the community in the examination and criticism of legislative proposals in the Dáil.
It is now nearly 50 years since the committee concluded that the onerous duties of ministerial office and the sacrifices involved were such as to warrant the grant of pensions. I venture now to say, without fear of contradiction, that the intervening years have seen not a diminution in those duties of office but rather a vast increase in the levels of involvement and responsibility of those holding ministerial office. This is a consequence of the huge changes and developments which have taken place in the economic and social life of our country since the mid-thirties and the commitments which we now have in the world at large, including our membership of the European Communities.
It was also a recommendation of the Shanley Committee that, with the exception of the parliamentary allowances of Deputies or Senators, any other remuneration or pension received from public funds should give rise to the abatement of ministerial pensions. The resulting legislation — the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Act, 1938 — provided accordingly for the exclusion of parliamentary allowances from reckoning under the abatement rules. The Act also provided that abatement on a sliding scale should apply to ministerial pensions where payments other than parliamentary allowances were received from public funds.
That situation continued until 1965 when the Pensions Abatement Act of that year provided that throughout the public service as a whole, abatement should be limited to a situation in which a person in receipt of a pension from public funds would be re-employed in the same service as that from which he has retired. Up to that time, re-employment anywhere in the public service after retirement would give rise to abatement if the pension plus the new salary exceeded the current rate of the retiring ">salary. Members will, no doubt, be aware of many cases in the Civil Service, local authority service, health and educational areas or in State-sponsored bodies where public service pensioners — for example, retired gardaí and Army personnel take up duty in the private sector and continue to draw their pensions while receiving the pay appropriate to their new employment. Indeed, the thinking which contributed to the modification of the abatement provisions in 1965 was based on the proposition that a pension should be regarded as having been earned in its own right by the period of earlier service. That proposition is also reflected in the fact that public servants can take their pension entitlements with them when they move to other jobs in the public service or in international organisations.
The reason I have commented in this detail on the background to the pension arrangements is to show the House how the present system was the product of the thorough and painstaking deliberations of the Shanley Committee and how it has been adapted over time. The arrangements which are now in operation for nearly half a century have played their part in maintaining both the quality and stability of our political institutions. It is not a system which I would wish to see lightly jettisoned in answer to any call, misinformed or otherwise, for its abandonment.
I want now to turn to the process by which the total remuneration of parliamentary and certain other office holders is determined in the context of former and current provisions relating to the payment of income tax, expenses, allowances and superannuation. This, of course, is a complex and delicate process calling for a high degree of competence and judgment on the part of those to whom its determination is entrusted. On the one hand, there is the legitimate case of those who by reason of their election or appointment to what must be among the most demanding of professions, are expected to give of their utmost in the service of the community. It is only just and natural that the endeavours of the holders of high public office should merit a reasonable and fair return. On the other hand, there are compelling reasons which call for an objective and impartial consideration and weighing of all of the issues. There is a certain degree of misunderstanding and a lack of knowledge about the interplay of these issues. In some instances there even seems to be a feeling abroad that in some way or other the recipients are the determinants of their own benefits. This is, of course, far from being the true position.
Deputies will recall that since 1983 when the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial, Parliamentary and Judicial Offices Act, 1983 became law, the pay of parliamentarians has been automatically adjusted in line with general pay increases in the Civil Service. Prior to that time, it will be remembered, it was not at all unusual to find that the pay of parliamentarians had fallen seriously behind in relation to national pay rounds. The subsequent adjustment of parliamentary pay so as to bring it back into line, belated though it often was, became a rather traumatic experience to which I am certain few Deputies, if any, would wish to revert. It is, however, important to remember that these public service increases of a general nature only followed a process of intensive bargaining, often prolonged, during which considerations such as ability to pay and the need for restraint were vigorously advanced and argued.
Prior to the introduction of automatic adjustment for general pay increases, as provided for in the 1983 Act, there were two major examinations of the levels of remuneration of the members of the Oireachtas, the Judiciary and the higher public service. The first was in 1972 and the second was completed in 1979 — nearly eight years ago. Both of these examinations were carried out by the independent Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector. In January 1986, the then Government agreed in the context of pay negotiations, after requests from the unions, that a further review should be put in hand and an undertaking to that effect was given in the ensuing pay agreement. Accordingly, the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector was reconstituted and an appropriate reference made to it in July 1986. Included in the reference was a request to the review body to examine and report on the remuneration of members of the Government, Ministers of State, certain office holders and the allowances of members of the Oireachtas. The review body was also requested when making its reports to have regard to the state of the public finances and current Government pay policy. The existing provisions for Ministerial pensions are a datum which will doubtless be taken into account by the review body, as was done on the occasion of the last two general references, in recommending rates of remuneration for Ministers and other parliamentarians.
Apart from the particular instances to which I have referred, the review body has otherwise functioned over the years as a standing body advising successive Governments on higher public sector pay levels. It is a body whose reports have always been noted for their thoroughness and careful research. When the review body was originally being set up, it was decided by the Government that it should consist of persons of standing and high integrity in the community. Also, it was considered essential that the members should be generally accepted as having no commitments to or affiliations with any of the groups coming within the review body's purview. A further consideration was that the members would be drawn from different walks of life with a variety of backgrounds so as to reflect a broad range of experience and professional expertise. The present chairman of the review body is Mr. Dermot Gleeson, Senior Counsel, who replaced Mr. Liam St. J. Devlin. Mr. Devlin was appointed chairman when the body was first set up in 1969 and he continued to hold that office until he resigned on 31 December, 1983. The other members of the review body are: Ms. Maeve Carton, Accountant, Arthur Anderson and Co.; Mr. John Donovan, past Chairman and Chief Executive of ESSO, who has held a wide range of appointments including chairmanship of the Industrial Development Authority and the Public Service Advisory Council; Mr. Cormac McHenry, Member, Labour Court; Mr. Stephen O'Connor, Chief Executive, Waterford Co-operative Society Ltd., and Ms. Evelyn Owens, Deputy Chairperson, Labour Court. In mentioning the names of the members of the Review Body, I want to acknowledge publicly the special contribution which they are making in undertaking the important tasks entrusted to them.
As I have already said, the pensions payable to former Ministerial and other office holders are not a matter in which the recipients should be seen as the arbitrators. I have no doubt that there is a general consensus in the House on this point. I have demonstrated that the review process is firmly outside the scope of influence of those involved. This is as it should be. It relieves the recipients of the anxiety that their case should have a fair hearing while, at the same time, they are free from any charge or suggestion that in some undefined way they can unfairly manipulate the system for their own financial gain. That, I must emphasise, is not so.
Finally, I should point out that the current reference to the review body also requested it as a first step to examine, as a matter of urgency, whether the remuneration of the groups concerned had fallen seriously out of line with that of comparable jobs in other employments since its last report and, if satisfied that serious anomalies or inequities existed, to recommend an interim increase to rectify them. Acting on this request, the review body recommended in an interim report that there should be an increase of 15 per cent for higher public servants, the Judiciary, chief executives of State-sponsored bodies and Members of the Oireachtas. The Government, however, on 13 March 1987, in view of the serious state of the public finances and the need for pay restraint generally, decided to postpone indefinitely any action in relation to the implementation of the interim report. This is a clear illustration of the firm intention of the Government to maintain the same degree of discipline and restraint in matters of parliamentarians' pay and other remuneration as is required generally.
(Limerick East): I wish to move an amendment to this motion. My amendment is as follows:
To delete all words after "That"and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann, conscious of the fact that the whole question of pay and conditions of Oireachtas Members, including pensions now paid to former Office holders, is before the Gleeson Committee declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill and, in doing so, invites the Gleeson Committee to consider the option of paying all former Office holders an additional increment for each year of service as an Office holder, and paying pensions, which should be on a contributory basis, to former Office holders only on their retirement from the Houses of the Oireachtas".
This is not the first time that the question of pension arrangements for holders of Ministerial office has been debated in the Houses of the Oireachtas. The pension arrangements for office holders are provided for, as the Minister has informed us, under the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act 1938, as amended by subsequent legislation. The 1938 legislation was enacted on foot of the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into Ministerial pensions and other emoluments under the chairmanship of Dr. John Shanley. The Shanley Committee recommended the introduction of Ministerial pensions on the grounds that any person who:
Attains Ministerial rank is obliged to cut himself adrift more or less completely from his former occupation or profession. If his tenure of office becomes protracted it may be extremely difficult for him on retirement to take up the threads of his former business.
I quote what the Minister has already quoted.
The severance from his former means of livelihood will often be irremediable and he will be left with no assurance whatever as to the future, although his high position, unlike that attained in other walks of life, is due to concentration on matters concerned with the public interest and public affairs. Experience has shown that the sacrifices involved in taking office as a Minister have been such that unless some remedy be found many persons who might otherwise have been attracted to a political career and whose services would have been most useful to the nation in that sphere may be deterred from accepting office unless provision is made to ensure that their future position is safeguarded. Another consideration that arises is the desirability of retaining ex Ministers in political life, as their knowledge of affairs and experience of administration must be of great value to the community in the examination and criticism of legislative proposals in the Dáil.
There was a further recommendation by the Shanley Committee concerning abatement of ministerial pensions where the person concerned was receiving other remuneration or pension from the public purse. Those abatement provisions, however, were abolished under the terms of the Pensions Abatement Act, 1965. I believe that the reasons enumerated by the Shanley Committee are still valid. I believe, however, that there is a problem. It is a problem of perception rather than of reality, but it is the function of this House to deal with both matters of perception and reality in public affairs and we should do all in our power to bring about a situation where the public perception of the reality accords with reality.
The problem with perception here, arises, I believe, from the use of the word "pension" to describe the emoluments received by former office holders as recommended by the Shanley committee. We associate the word "pension" with retirement. Some members of the public find it difficult to understand why a person in active public life, in receipt of salary, should be treated as if he had retired and be awarded a pension. The word "pension" is also associated with old age. Some members of the public find it difficult to understand, why people in the flower of life, and, indeed, some people who are still young, should be treated as if they were aged. And yet the arguments put forward by Dr. Shanley's committee are not alone valid but, I believe, have more validity now than when the Ministers Pensions Act was first passed in 1938 by this House.
Twice in recent times the question has been re-examined by eminent people, who are not Members of this House, and there was no recommendation for change. I refer of course to the Members of the Independent Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector. In both the 1972 and 1979 reports from this body, it has been stated that the members of the committee had regard to the superannuation provisions for office holders in making recommendations on their remuneration. In other words, not only did the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector examine the question of pensions for office holders, and recommend no change, but they actually reduced what they considered to be the rate for the job appropriate to office holders, because they would benefit subsequently from pensions on losing office. In effect the review body treated ministerial pensions as deferred pay but despite this, the difficulties of public perception still remain.
The Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector has been reconstituted. It has new membership, as outlined by the Minister, under the chairmanship of Dermot Gleeson SC from which it derives its colloquial name, the Gleeson Committee. That committee, which has already submitted an interim report, should be requested to deal with this issue along the lines of my amendment. We should have an incremental salary scale for TDs and Senators and my amendment is contingent on this. I wanted to include this recommendation in my amendment, but was advised that this was not in order as it was outside the scope of the Bill.
In case of any doubt about the matter, I want the Gleeson Committee to examine the possibility of TDs and Senators being paid on an incremental scale. If they recommend this, I believe office holders when they lose office should be paid an increment for each year of service as an office holder, in addition to their entitlement as a TD or Senator. In these new circumstances I think that pensions should only be paid to office holders on retirement from the Houses of the Oireachtas, and that this pension like some, though not all, public service pensions, should be on a contributory basis. I propose that Dáil Éireann ask the Gleeson Committee to consider this, together with the other aspects of pay and conditions of parliamentarians already under consideration. It is very difficult to be both judge and jury in one's own case. All Members of this House are subjectively concerned with the Bill which is before us tonight. I am a former office holder. The Minister for Finance at present holds high office. Deputy Colley who has moved this Bill here tonight may be an office holder in the future. Indeed, her father who was highly respected in this House and in the country generally was entitled to benefit from the provisions of the 1938 Act during his period in Dáil Éireann when he was not an office holder. Because of our past, our present or our prospects we find ourselves very close to the argument. Consequently, it is preferable that an outside body of the eminence of the Gleeson Committee should examine this question objectively and make their recommendations to the Government.
We have Deputies of very high quality in all parties sitting in this House at present. I do not believe, however, that we are getting a cross-section of all the talent available in the country as a whole. This is because some people simply cannot afford to be Members of this House because of the loss of income they would incur by moving from their present profession or business to become full time politicians. I find increasingly in our party — I presume the same situation pertains in other parties — that members of the professions and of the business community while actively involved in politics are reluctant to run for office. This reluctance arises from the fact that they simply cannot afford to run as the loss in income and the loss in time is too much for them to sustain both personally and for their families.
Anecdotal evidence is not always the best evidence but I would like to tell the House two short anecdotes which arise from personal experiences when I was a Minister. One occurred when I was Minister for Industry and Commerce. The chairman of the board of the National Development Corporation after it was set up informed me that it would be impossible to get a chief executive for that body if the remuneration offered was within the Devlin scale for semi-State bodies. I succeeded in getting Government agreement for a salary of £48,000 which was outside that scale. The chairman subsequently informed me that this salary was not sufficient to compete with the type of pay and conditions available to people in the private banking sector which was the target market for the chief executive. In my early days as Minister for Justice I was sitting at an official dinner beside a senior banker here and was enormously impressed as an neophyte holder of office to be there. In the course of conversation he remarked that he was bemused by the fact that his salary was exactly twice that of the Minister for Finance. We have an obligation to construct a proper career path for Members elected to this House. The concept of increments, so widespread in the public service, is an acceptable method of achieving this.
I should like to speak on behalf of a group in the House that is increasingly getting larger, those who are full time public representatives and who rely on what they get paid here to sustain them and their families. That is not the experience of all Members. If we are to talk about Dáil Deputies' salaries being topped up by ministerial pensions we should look at the Members who are not full time Members of the House. We should look at the people who can use this House as a convenient downtown office, some of them on their way to a place where one can get £1,500 for the first day and £1,000 subsequently per day. We should also remember that some Members cannot afford to be here unless their spouses are working. I do not want to be a kept Deputy but some people can afford to be here if their spouses are working and others wonder if we can continue to stay here if our spouses are not in a position to return to work.
It would be very easy to get personal on this matter but I do not have any intention of doing so when explaining my position. I do not intend to cast aspersions on any other Deputy. I was pleased, despite many of the references in the speeches by the Progressive Democrats, that they did agree with the burden of what I am putting forward in some side remarks they made. Deputy Colley suggested by inference that a system of allowances for front bench Members might be appropriate. Deputy Keating, who always oozes sincerity on occasions like this, remarked that he did not think it right that people in this House with, say, 20 years' experience should have the same remuneration as somebody starting for the first time.
The Gleeson Committee which is independent, eminent and not subject to influence by people in this House should examine the situation. Let them see if they can create a wage structure and a career path for professional politicians who want to dedicate their lives full time to the business of democracy.
This is not the issue.
(Limerick East): I suggest that in constructing that career path they will do a great credit and be of great benefit to the democratic process here. In that I am glad that, if even only in a gentle way, the spokespersons for the Progressive Democrats agree that not everybody should be on the same level of remuneration and that there should be some career path, either through promotion or seniority, available for Members of this House. One could go on. This is something that we have to look at objectively. I doubt if it is possible to get any group in this House in any party not only to look at it objectively but to be publicly perceived to be objective. That is why I am saying that we should use the objective review group that are already examining these matters. I recommend my amendment to the House and ask that the changes I am proposing be seriously considered.
The most telling point made by the Minister this evening was his comment that former ministerial and other office holders who are recipients should not be seen to be the arbitrators in this matter. I recall very vividly that when I came into this House in 1969 it took us at least four or five years to have the Devlin Review Body established to review not only the general levels of higher remuneration in the Public Service but also the levels of remuneration of Members of the Government and Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas. There was a thorough review in 1972 and I recall Deputy O'Malley participating in that review. There was a further on-going review in 1979. In 1972 and 1979 the general level of remuneration and the allowances paid and pension entitlements gained by office holders were the subject of intensive discussion and report by the Devlin Review Body that we all remember. These comprehensive reports are still available. It was not suggested at that time that there should be any change in the system of pensions paid to former office holders. I make that point because I strongly hold the view that there should be an outside and separate role played by an independent body determining allowances and the level of salaries — they are classified as salaries and allowances under Statute.
This business of Deputies in the House adopting unilateral, separatist, party political, perhaps understandably developed, viewpoints, putting them forward as a solution to a particular problem is not the right way to go about it. One would not require much trade union experience or experience in the Public Service to see how flawed that approach really is. I have expressed the view within and outside Government and to the review bodies that the system should be reformed. My only interference in relation to this matter was when the Gleeson Review Body proposed a 15 per cent increase. As Members of the Government sitting around the council chamber, we decided that we would not implement the 15 per cent increase and that was that. I recall the decisions of Deputy O'Malley and some of his colleagues who were Ministers at the time not to accept a Dáil pay increase. We subsequently had to pay tax on it because it was a statutory allowance. It was a rather interesting anomaly.
People learned from those occasions that the best way of resolving this matter was by way of an independent review body. I recall proposing in Government the last members of the review body, distinguished persons, particularly the chairman, Dermot Gleeson, Senior Counsel, who replaced Liam St. John Devlin, who reported on many occasions on this matter and on the totality of the Public Service levels of remuneration and so on, and also distinguished members such as Evelyn Owens, deputy chairperson of the Labour Court, who was nominated also on to the currently existing Gleeson Review Body.
Having pointed out the wrong approach to this, I want to comment on the present position. I have been paying, as a citizen and have been proud to do so since 1952, for 35 years, social insurance, ever since I entered employment. Whenever I ceased to be employed as an insured person, I became a voluntary contributor. I am currently paying on my Dáil salary 6.5 per cent as a voluntary contributor. Hopefully I will continue paying it up to the age of 65, to give me cover for a retirement pension and an old age pension and to give cover for my wife and family for a widow's pension and dependant pensions. Every time I went over the limit, I continued to pay as a voluntary contributor. That is as it should be — we should pay for our pensions.
Secondly, I have been paying, for the Houses of the Oireachtas superannuation scheme, 6 per cent of salary on top of the voluntary contribution since 1969, from entry into the Dáil. That is as it should be. I would have no objection whatever if the Minister for Finance told us tomorrow that the Exchequer subvention for the Houses of the Oireachtas superannuation scheme was in excessive deficit and that the contribution would have to be raised to 8 or 9 per cent. I would pay because, whether I enjoy it or not myself, I have a fundamental responsibility to protect my family in terms of demise and there is also a responsibility devolving on Dáil Deputies, particularly those who have no other source of income. One anomaly stands out in relation to the so-called pensions to former office holders and that is that they are non-contributory. Whatever else they should be, they should be contributory. I believe in earned payments, earned pensions, earned by pay of contribution.
This House is believed to be festooned with Deputies who get free drink, free or subsidised meals, free telephone, free envelopes and free travel at the expense of the taxpayer. There is a public myth that Deputies are an elite species festooned with perks. As we Deputies well know, particularly those of us who have been here for a couple of terms, the reality is quite different but that should not give us any exemption from paying for the pensions that are paid to those who have held office. Indeed, I have considerable sympathy for and appreciation of the merits of the amendment proposed by Deputy Noonan in which he suggests that there should be an examination of the incremental aspects in addition to the fortieths paid from the ordinary superannuation scheme.
He made some very sensible points. I presume that the movers of the Bill before the House will give that matter some consideration before the debate on the Bill closes. Having said that, I am also strongly of the view that the current review body should review the present level of remuneration. I vividly remember, as a member of the Government, going to senior business management persons to ask them whether they would be prepared to accept positions as chief executives of certain bodies. They laughed at the level of remuneration we were offering them. Finally, the Government had to pick the sixth or seventh person on the list to take the job. That was also in part a consequence of the decision not to pay the 15 per cent increase recommended by the review body for the Judiciary, the chief executives of State-sponsored bodies and Members of the Oireachtas. That decision was published at the time. There is a need to review the overall levels and, admittedly, this is an extremely sensitive matter, especially in terms of public service pay levels, but it is a matter which should not be shirked and one which requires examination.
I have no objection to a rigorous examination of the current system of paying pensions to former office holders, particularly if it is related to, first, contributions, secondly, to the general scheme of pensions and, thirdly, to an examination of the age at which pensions are paid. Age is important. As we well know, in the Parliaments of Europe the members have to wait until they reach a particular age, in some cases it is 50 in others 55 and in others 60, before they are entitled to draw a pension. In the United Kingdom, a member has to be 65 before he can draw a pension. In that sense, we are in a unique position.
Some aspects of the Bill, as proposed, are simplistic in their approach. When I entered this House in 1969, it was littered with morning lawyers who become politicians in the afternoon. They used to run in from the front car park — there was none in the back at the time — having thrown off their Law Library gowns and rush into the Dáil to give it the benefit of a couple of hours of their wonderful legal competence. We at that time had to live off what was a relatively low salary. Indeed, many of the politicians who entered this House decided to use their sojourn here to become lawyers and to go out to develop their incomes. I never succumbed to that temptation because I believe that one should be a full time Deputy.
You might not pass the exams.
I used to suffer a certain degree of jaundice when, as Minister for Health, I would go to visit a hospital and meet there in the role of head of security a former public servant aged perhaps 56 or 57 who was drawing a substantial pension from the public service. I would say to myself that nobody ever referred to that kind of case. It is not unknown that within the precincts of this House there are several such persons whose cases might merit a review, in the context of equity. If it is going to be sauce for the political goose it should be sauce also for the general gander. Again, I stress that I have no objection whatsoever to a major review of this particular anomaly, an anomaly which relates in particular to the lack of contributions.
No party are more preoccupied with lower taxes and reduced contributions for State services than are the Progressive Democrats. Therefore, I take our colleagues at their word and look forward to the day when their future office holders and perhaps their current ones would also surrender their entitlements in regard to widowhood or to spouses. I take it that that will be generously ceded also, presumably after consultation. I look forward to a more rational discussion of what has been put forward here tonight. As far back as 1983 my party at two successive conferences adopted policy statements, long before the embryo was hatched in a Progessive Democrats PR exercise——
What did you do about them when you were in Government?
——and long before that date that this particular system should be reformed.
You were four years in Government.
We are doing something about this question.
Are you going to vote for the Bill?
That is the question.
You will be interested to know that the Labour Party have decided to support your party's Bill.
Did you agree with them?
Furthermore, the House will be interested to know — and it would not be betraying any secrets of our parliamentary party meeting which was attended by the Leader of the party, the Deputy Leader of the party and all other former office holders who are in receipt of such emoluments — that in accordance with Labour Party policy of contributory pension schemes which we introduced in this House in 1952, when Deputy William Norton stood over there and introduced the fundamental principle, we decided that the Bill merited support long before the Progressive Democrats were a twinkle in the lapsed Fianna Fáil eye.
On that basis we urge that the Bill be supported on Second Stage, should be subject to appropriate amendments which, in the event of Second Stage being passed, we would be prepared to put down. We believe there is no such thing as a free pension, least of all, emanating from the Progressive Democrats.
Deputy Harney might move the Adjournment of the debate. The Deputy is in possession.
Debate adjourned.