Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Oct 1987

Vol. 374 No. 3

Private Members' Business. - Oireachtas and Ministerial Pensions Bill, 1987: Second Stage (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy Colley on Wednesday, 14 October 1987:

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Debate resumed on Amendment No. 1:

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 office holders only on their retirement from the Houses of the Oireachtas."

Miss Harney

I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this Bill that is being moved by the Progressive Democrats. It is appropriate, on a day on which we have spent so much time discussing the Estimates for 1988 and rightly coming to terms with the economic difficulties that confront this country, that we should this evening turn our attention to something that is causing not just disquiet among the public but is turning so many people away from the democratic process when they look to Leinster House and Dáil Éireann and see there people who, they believe, prefer to look after themselves rather than do what is necessary in the interest of the country.

The previous speaker in this debate was the deputy leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Barry Desmond. Had he not been asked just before he finished which way his party were voting and indicated that he was supporting this Bill I would have been very surprised indeed to find that he was supporting it. He made one of the best speeches against this Bill that one could possibly make. Deputy Desmond referred to our Bill as a rather simplistic measure and I agree with him there. It is a simple measure. It is a question of whether we in this House believe it right and appropriate that we should pay pensions to serving Members of this House, of the European Parliament and of the Judiciary while they are still drawing salaries from the State.

To say that 99 per cent of the people support the measure we are putting forward in this Bill might be even to underestimate it. Other than the people in receipt of these pensions, their families and close friends, I doubt if any person does not believe it is appropriate 50 years on since Dr. Shanley sat on his committee to make changes in this regard. We have not just serious economic difficulties. We have a huge young population who are fed up with the traditional political response they get from politicians on both sides of the House. They are fed up with the answers that tell them that in order for progress to be made, in order to move forward, we have always to refer measures to one kind of committee or another.

When people marched for tax reform, instead of the Members of this House bringing in tax reform, we set up a committee or a commission and a number of years on, despite the fact that public money was spent compiling a report on that, it has never been debated on the floor of this House. The same occurred in relation to social welfare. We all recognise the problem there. Many people in our society unfortunately have to live on an inadequate income. We set up a commission to look after that and, again, despite the fact that they produced their report over a year and a half ago, that report has never been discussed in this House either. We have had committees on child care facilities and a host of other matters. We are adept in this House at putting things on the long finger, promising progress sometime down the road or setting up the famous Dáil committee or outside committee to tell us what we should be doing. We are great at ignoring the recommendations of these committees yet when it comes to something that affects ourselves our attitude is different. Deputy Noonan from Fine Gael and others in this House have told us in the last few days that we should await the outcome of the Gleeson Committee before making any decision whatever in this matter. Everybody in his heart knows that that is an excuse, simply putting the matter away for some future date hoping that it will never come up again.

It is interesting that when the Gleeson Committee were appointed their terms of reference, which I have before me here, did not include reviewing the payment of ministerial pensions to former office holders. Apparently some time later, no doubt when we published our Bill, they were asked to look at that.

Many things need changing in the House and I would be the first to say that in relation to the payment of Oireachtas salaries of all kinds we need review. I agree with the speeches made on that. We need to review the procedures in this House which are so archaic that it is sometimes impossible to raise burning issues of the day on the floor of the House. When they are raised it is only with great difficulty.

Today the Taoiseach made a very eloquent speech about the need to tighten our belts. He said that the whole community must play their part in bringing this country back to economic survival. That involved the whole community; nobody must opt out. It seems to me that everybody in the country must play his or her part except the people affected by this Bill. When politicians try to sell tough measures, when they go around the country rightly preaching a message that there are no easy answers, no free lunches, no money readily available for so many projects, is it any wonder that people rise up and ask about the money spent on X, Y or Z, on paying pensions to serving Members of the Oireachtas?

I agree that the amount of money involved is not great. It would not do much. Sister Stanislaus said today that it would keep the 400 homeless children of Dublin in a refuge for a number of years. Others have spoken about what it might do in particular areas, and no doubt we could all pick out a number of projects and say that if this Bill were passed this or that project could get support. We might not have to reduce the allocation to the Combat Poverty Agency of £300,000. The amount of money involved here is £250,000 per year; it is not great but good example is being set because it indicates once and for all to the rest of the community whether we are serious about tackling the injustices that exist particularly when they affect ourselves. Is it any wonder that most people believe that politicians will tackle all the problems except those that affect them? We must get away from the committee and the commission and the all-party approach to solving difficult problems.

People in this House are elected to make decisions and even when those decisions are difficult and affect ourselves, it is there more than anywhere else that we must show that we are capable of leading by example. In that regard I am very pleased that the two members of my party who were in receipt of these pensions have decided individually and of their own free will to give up these pensions from the end of this year. Many people in this House and outside it, I am sure will say, "sure, they probably can afford it anyway." I am aware of the enormous sacrifice that both of those men are making. They both have young families. They are both full-time Members of this House. They have given fantastic service to this country as Ministers in various Governments for a number of years. They have served, in one case, for over 20 years and in the other, for almost 20 years as Members of Dáil Éireann and they have served their respective constituencies very well.

I am not pleased that they are giving up their pensions just because of the amount of money saved, £16,000 or whatever it will be, but I am pleased that at least two people in this House are prepared to lead by example, that the public can see that they are not like the rest, that they are prepared to make sacrifices and are prepared, as it were, to put their money where their mouth is. I am very pleased that at least we have two such Members. Others might follow their example.

I am very disappointed, and not just at the kind of response I hear from Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil because to some extent I expect the nice answers on radio or television when they almost explain that the thing is wrong, that we must look at it, that changes must be made, and so on. If you really believe a thing is wrong the time to show that it is wrong is not when you are on radio or television but next Wednesday at 8.30 p.m. when this Bill will be voted on. There is no point in telling me or anybody in this House or in this country in any words, any rhetoric, that payment of ministerial pensions to serving Members of the Oireachtas, the Judiciary, the European Parliament or whatever, is wrong if you do not vote for that principle next Wednesday at 8.30 p.m. There is no point in making excuses or in expecting Dermot Gleeson and his committee to do what the Dáil should do. He has not got a vote here on next Wednesday. The Deputies here have a vote and they were elected to make the decisions. Earlier today when the Taoiseach was talking about the things that need to be done he said regretfully:

The policies which we have adopted are dictated entirely by the fiscal and economic realities. I wish to state again categorically that they are not being undertaken for any ideological reason or political motives. They are not policies of the left or right, but policies dictated by the sheer necessity of economic survival.

That is the second time in recent days that the Taoiseach went to great pains to explain that he does not agree with what he is doing but that he has to do it anyway. Perhaps there are people in this House who do not agree with the way they will vote on this Bill, but they will do it any way because it suits them. They know it is wrong. Everybody in this House who does not receive a pension knows that this should be changed. I have spoken to many of them who have said that this should be changed and that this issue more than any other is something that the public constantly refer to. The public say "do not tell me about reform; do not tell me you really care or that you are going to make sacrifices; show me by changing the ministerial pensions regulations". If a person earning more than £6.50 if single, and approximately £8 if married, applies for a non-contributory old age pension, the excess is deducted from the old age pension. Is it any wonder that people with means of the order of £6 or £8 per week are disillusioned when Members of this House receive pensions of over £14,000 per annum? Can any one blame them if they are fed up with the political system and if they consider that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are the same, only looking after themselves while everyone else can live in hardship?

Is it any wonder that the people who have to beg for sums of £5,000 or £7,000 to keep a voluntary organisation going, who have to come to politicians like me, to Government Ministers and to the media to make appeals on radio and television, are beginning to despair? Is it any wonder that they do not really care who they talk to because they believe we are all the same, feathering our own nests? Can we convince them we are not when we have an attitude such as the one we have to this Bill? Is it any wonder that so few young people care about any of the political parties? Many are going outside of what we would regard as the normal democratic process in order to express their political opinions. They are doing this not because they believe it is right but to protest against a corrupt political system. Is it any wonder that the people I met yesterday who could not get £70,000 to build an enterprise centre to provide jobs in Tallaght where there are 70 per cent of the people unemployed, are in despair? One Government Minister said that if they could raise the money locally, he would help them, despite the fact that 70 per cent of the people there are unemployed. Is it any wonder that those people said that they were fed up with the politics of this country and that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael were all the same?

When Michael Noonan on behalf of Fine Gael moved his amendment last week he was at pains to point out that a lot of changes need to be made——

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Michael Noonan.

Miss Harney

——particularly in relation to the way Deputies are paid, to the whole operation of Oireachtas salaries and allowances and so on. I agree with that. I agree with having fewer Members in this House and with having them full-time. We have far too many TDs. We do not need the Seanad. For the Progressive Democrats this is the first step which is necessary along a road of institutional reform. Getting rid of the Seanad is part of it and getting full time TDs is part of it as is having fewer TDs — a 100 or so would be more than enough. Much reform is necessary but this is the first measure and this House will show by its voting next week whether or not it is serious about reform.

The Minister last week had to go back to 1937 to justify the payment of these pensions. The Minister referred to the Committee of Inquiry into Ministerial and other Salaries of 1937 under Dr. John Shanley. Michael Noonan accepted his justification as well.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry, Deputy, but it is contained in the Standing Orders of this House that Members be referred to by their appropriate title, Deputy and Minister. Deputy Michael Noonan.

Miss Harney

I am sorry. Deputy Michael Noonan used the same committee to justify his party's stance on this issue. We had to go back 50 years to continue to justify something which we all know to be wrong. Many people have to make enormous sacrifices. The Minister in his address said that people who serve in office make a lot of sacrifices. I agree with that. They make enormous sacrifices in terms of finance, in terms of time with their families and so on. But, so do a lot of other people. The Irish Shipping workers made a lot of sacrifices on behalf of this country and yet they were left by Deputy Mitchell and his colleagues stranded pensionless all over the world. Even last week many of them were protesting outside this House, wondering what would happen to their pensions. Their sacrifices do not seem to matter. Thousands of people who have been made redundant have made huge sacrifices and many have been left penniless. We must show that we are interested in fairness and justice and we should go to great lengths not to treat ourselves as everybody else, but to make a little more of a sacrifice because of the job we are expected to do. People do not go into politics to be rewarded. If they do, they are misguided, they should be in something else. What we want in politics are people dedicated to looking after the affairs of the country, people who are prepared to look objectively at the issues and make decisions in the interests of the common good. That means having to make hard decisions that affect many people. It means having to do things one might not like doing. The best way to sell tough measures is by leading by example, by making sacrifices and by showing that we really care about the way parliamentary politics is run and organised.

I would refer for a moment to something I read in The Irish Independent last Saturday. I do so, not to bring the person involved into politics because he is above politics. I am referring to the President. I read that he had given up his pension some time ago. I do not want to bring him into politics — he is the first citizen of this country — except to say——

An Ceann Comhairle

It would be most inappropriate.

Miss Harney

——that he has given a great example.

An Ceann Comhairle

It would be most inappropriate to refer to the President.

Miss Harney

It is a pity that when he has given such a great example that we cannot compliment him for doing so. I say that, leaving politics aside.

This Bill, if passed will save the Exchequer in this year and perhaps in each subsequent year £250,000. If pensions were only to be applied to people when they reached the age of 65, as an energetic journalist from The Irish Press worked out the other day, we could save up to £3 million per annum. That may be too much to expect because, if we cannot get this measure passed, we will not be able to pass the additional measures required to save that amount of money.

We do not bring forward this Bill simply as a finance saving exercise. There is that involved and it is not a lot of money, but I think it can go a long way in terms of what some people require from the State. There are many organisations that could benefit enormously by it. We bring it forward simply to show that at this time, in 1987, the politicians of this country began to lead by example, began to show that we were prepared to try to get rid of the cynicism and the distrust and the confusion that exists in this country in terms of the people and the attitudes towards the people who serve in this House. All of us know when we canvass at doorsteps or get involved with ordinary members of the public who are not involved in any political party that invariably many of them say: "You are all the same, it does not really matter who is there; you all look after number one first". If we pass this Bill, if we make that small sacrifice that already some Members of this House have done without the Bill being passed at all, we will help to restore confidence in the political process and in the politicians who serve in the Dáil at the moment.

There are people in the Labour Party who apparently do not agree with the Bill, but they are going to vote for it anyway. I wish there were more people in the House who would even do that. But I want to call on the members of Fine Gael in particular. This Government is a minority Government. The Workers' Party are committed to supporting this Bill. The Labour Party have already indicated they are. If Fine Gael, instead of sitting down next Wednesday night or simply voting for their amendment which is so meaningless that it does not really matter whether they vote for it or not, were to use their influence in this House and vote for our measure, then Second Stage would be passed and we would be on the way to getting rid of what everybody, other than the people affected by it, regard as a terrible anomaly.

I hope I am not asking too much. Deputy Mitchell who is here on behalf of Fine Gael tonight is their spokesperson on social welfare. He knows as well as I do that for the thousands of families depending on social welfare each week to survive, the passing of this Bill will be an important step towards showing them that there are others prepared to make sacrifices. He represents a constituency like my own, with very high levels of unemployment and many people, particularly young people, turning away from the politics we have been used to here for so long. I hope that many of them will continue to turn to a new party that is prepared to shake this country up and look at new ways without falling back on the excuses that come from 1937 or whatever. He knows that this measure is important to many of those people because it will prove once and for all that we are interested in tackling the things that affect ourselves.

The debate has widened into other issues such as the payment of Dáil salaries and allowances for Members of the Oireachtas which are not really the issue. The issue is simply the payment of ministerial pensions. Last week we saw in a Dáil reply the kind of money involved, £14,000 in relation to one person and other amounts varying up to £10,000. There are young people in this House, people as young as I, who will have £3,000 for the rest of their lives by way of pension in addition to other salaries. That cannot be justified. Some people in the House will say that the pension was not brought in for those people but for older people, to reward people of ability.

Of course it is not always the case that people of ability serve in Government. There are many able people in this House who have never served in Government and possibly never will. Some are possibly more able than those that do. It is not a question of ability. Ability is sometimes confused with promotion, and given the way we promote people on political patronage, I doubt very much if we will always have the best people to serve in ministerial positions. Nonetheless the excuse is made that the pension is there to reward the able, the experienced, those who have given long service as Ministers. I would not regard three years service in Government as long service and justifying the payment of a pension for the rest of one's life. Three years as a junior Minister is not, by any stretch of the imagination, long service. In fact, it is short. For younger Members promoted to junior Ministries, it is a lot of money to have for the rest of their lives.

When Deputy Colley was moving this Bill she said that for the Progressive Democrats it was the first stage of bringing forward in this House for debate a number of measures that will change not just one parliamentary institution but many of the other institutions under which we are governed. Many of them urgently need review. They are not serving the functions for which they were established and have long outlived their usefulness. Nowhere is that more relevant than in this House.

I do not for one moment want to accept defeat because there is plenty of time for people in both parties to change their minds. I am sure many of them have met numbers of people who want this Bill passed not because of the money but because of the principle and the example we are prepared to make through decisions that affect ourselves. In the context of the debate we had earlier, the tough decisions that are necessary, the sacrifices that people must make over the next number of months, we have had cuts right across the board except where it affects the Members of this House. Let us try to end the cynicism. Let us try to begin a process of restoring faith in this House and in the Members who serve in it. Let not everybody in this House be tarred with the same brush. I am pleased that two people have set an example. I hope others will follow. They may not do so today or next week but I have no doubt that there are many decent people in this country who want to work for change and for the image of politics, who will continue to put on pressure until this kind of measure is introduced, and I hope it will not be too long.

The Progressive Democrats and Fine Gael have between them enough votes to carry this Bill through Second Stage. We are not hung up on the wording. We will accept changes from whatever source but let us accept the principle and we can get down to changing the words, if that is what is involved. Let nobody in this House who votes against this Bill next week get up on any platform, radio programme on television programme and pretend they are against payment of ministerial pensions but are waiting for some committee to make the decision for us.

Even giving up the pension is almost impossible. It is almost necessary to bring in lawyers. Yet, if an old age pensioner decided to give up his pension, or if a woman decided she did not want her child benefit and threw the book in the fire, there is no doubt that they would hear no more from the powers that be but giving up this ministerial pension is almost impossible. It almost takes a miracle. That indicates just how much we have tied ourselves up in red tape to protect the Members of this House, not the people we are elected to serve and lead. We should do that leading by example, particularly by showing that we are going to end the anomalies that affect ourselves.

Mr. J. Mitchell

This Bill touches on a very major cause of a lot of our problems. If we are not able to pay or provide the conditions of service that attract the best of people into the State sector, whether in the Dáil, in the public service or in the wider public sector, we will not get them. The question of ministerial pensions cannot be isolated from the general question. Of course it is a sacrifice for Members in receipt of such pensions to give them up. It represents a loss and if it is to be taken as being devoid of all political opportunism it is a wholly worthy exercise but, unfortunately, it appears from what Deputy Harney and other members of the Progressive Democrats have said that there is another motive. I am not saying there is not a motive of self-sacrifice but the other motive is to milk this otherwise worthy move for all its political worth. That discredits the self-sacrifice.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. J. Mitchell

I do not know what salary Deputy Colley has from her practice as a solicitor and I do not know how much Deputy McDowell earns in the Law Library. I do not want to take those earnings from those Deputies but I am anxious to make a fundamental point. I do not want to take away from Deputy Mac Giolla his ESB pension. The question raised in the Bill is an important one. It seems wrong in practice to pay what are called pensions to those who are still active in this House. In other walks of life such payments, called increments or cushion money, are paid to people who take a substantial drop in salary on leaving office.

This gives rise to the whole question of trying to get the best people into the public sector. Without seeking to nullify the intentions of the Bill I must point out that one of the greatest problems facing us is that we cannot attract the best people available to this House. I suggest that if Members scan the list of able Members who belong to the Progressive Democrats they will see that none of them comes from the business sector. What businessman could afford to give up his position to become a Member of the House?

Mr. McDowell

Deputies Cullen and Pat O'Malley.

Mr. Cullen

I am not here in the hope of getting a pension.

Mr. J. Mitchell

This House could do with an injection of business expertise. I do not mind members of the Progressive Democrats heckling me during what I hope is a not unsympathetic contribution but it is important that we consider how things should work here. If we demean the work of public representatives it will be no surprise if the public demean that work. I agree with Deputy Harney that if the Bill was put to a referendum it would be carried by a two to one majority, because it is popular to call for a cut in the pay of TDs and some people consider that we are too well paid. However, I consider that to be a cosmetic point which does not bear examination.

The terms and conditions of employment of TDs since 1938 have been fixed by independent commissions. Almost invariably those commissions have recommended higher rates of remuneration and better conditions of service than have been adopted. Only a few months ago a 15 per cent interim increase was recommended by a commission. That body reported that terms and conditions were so bad commensurate with the responsibility and the type of people who should be enticed into politics that an interim increase in pay of 15 per cent should be paid. However, because of our economic position the Government shot down that recommendation. A similar recommendation was made in respect of higher civil servants and that was shot down.

We pay secretaries of Government Departments £38,000 per annum and those individuals have huge responsibilities. Frequently they must go to the marketplace to try to recruit executives to run such concerns as the ESB, Aer Lingus, our rail company or our broadcasting corporation but they cannot attract the best people. Is it any wonder that our electricity charges are so much higher than in other European countries, a point made by Deputy McDowell? Is it any wonder that our telecommunications charges are so high when there is no way under our system of (a) recognising responsibility and rewarding it and (b) recognising achievement and rewarding it. There is a more fundamental point than the mere question of ministerial pensions.

When I was in charge of the Department of Communications I was responsible for many State companies all of which, with the exception of B & I, are now in better shape than they were four years ago. It is my belief that they could be in better shape if we were able to recruit more experienced executives. We could not do that because we could not reward them adequately. We cannot hire for the State sector or encourage into Parliament the best people available because we cannot reward them adequately. The sacrifices by Deputies Dessie O'Malley and Molloy are praiseworthy but they are minor points compared to the central issue: how can we run our public affairs better and get the best people involved?

In the UK where a great deal of economic recovery is taking place the Government have taken steps to break away from the old system and varied the level of salary paid to Departmental secretaries and they have broken all norms by deciding to pay competitive salaries to those who take on the responsibility of running major State organisations.

Mr. McDowell

They do not pay pensions to former Ministers.

Mr. J. Mitchell

We will never be able to maximise the regeneration of economic activity unless we recognise that there is a major problem in regard to pay and conditions in the public sector. It is not that pay and conditions are too good, and that may not be a popular point to make in the midst of savage cuts in public services. If the policy I favour was followed in the past ten years we would not be in the economic mess we are in today. We would not have the chaos that has occurred in the State sector. Deputy Harney was unkind enough to mention Irish Shipping and to blame me for the problems of that company.

Miss Harney

Deputy Mitchell was the Minister responsible and he left employees of that concern pensionless all over the world.

Mr. J. Mitchell

That is wrong. One thing I was able to do in legislation which Deputies McDowell and Colley as lawyers can verify, was to cover their pensions retrospective to the date of liquidation. We have provided for them in the future.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Harney must not interrupt.

Miss Harney

I have to interrupt.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

You must not: the Chair will not allow you to. I suggest to Deputy Mitchell that he refrains from looking invitingly at Deputy Harney. He is going to get that response. Will Deputy Mitchell continue to address the Chair when is is getting absolute silence?

Mr. J. Mitchell

Is this a new precedent, that we are not allowed to look at Deputy Harney and other attractive Members of this House?

Miss Harney

Thank you, Deputy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Or provocatively, whichever the Deputy likes.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I am trying to respond to a very unkind point which Deputy Harney has made. I know she is not an unkind person but sometimes in her flights of self-righteousness she stoops to unkindness which can be hurtful.

Miss Harney

I did not know that the Deputy was so sensitive.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I accept the Deputy's apologies. A large part of the reason for the huge financial mess we are in today is that we are not able to recognise responsibility. We are not able to recognise achievement. No matter what David Kennedy, the Chief Executive of Aer Lingus, does, no matter how good he is in getting results — and he has been good — or Paul Conlon, Chief Executive of CIE — and he has been good — no matter how good or how bad they are, they will get the very same salary. Of one thing we can be certain, that that salary is a great deal less than would be paid for commensurate responsibility in the private sector. We must change these things. We must do this urgently. Take, for instance, the health sector.

Mr. McDowell

On a point of order, is the Deputy being relevant? He has uttered total irrelevancies to evade the issue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair will interpret what is irrelevant and I will remind the Deputy of that.

Mr. McDowell

If you are ruling that that is relevant, I do not know what relevance means. The Deputy is not entitled, I submit to you, to make speeches about the remuneration of people in the semi-State sector when he is debating a Bill about our remuneration.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

On a point of interest, I suggest to Deputy McDowell that other speakers have the same feeling about him when he speaks and the Chair does not interrupt. The Deputy is not the sole arbiter of what is right and what is wrong.

Mr. McDowell

I am making a submission.

Mr. N. Treacy

Nor do we need a law lecture.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The submission has been noted and rejected. Deputy Mitchell should proceed, without interruption.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I would submit that I should not be looking at Deputy McDowell, either. What I have to say is more pertinent to the question before us than the biblical references of Deputy McDowell half an hour ago. We cannot recognise achievement, as I said. We cannot reward achievement by pay in the State sector. As a result, we are not getting the quality of people into the State sector, whether it be the Dáil, the Civil Service, or State companies. Let us look at the list of people who have left the Civil Service in the past couple of years and goodness knows there are many more able people in the public service who will have opportunities of earning much more outside the public service in the coming months and years. It is a very major problem.

I was going to make a point about the health sector before Deputy McDowell interjected. Let us take the health boards. No chief executive can be rewarded, even if he had gone out himself and reduced the expenditure of the health boards. He will not be recognised, so why have the hassle? However, if he could be recognised, I suspect we would have had much less growth in health expenditure over the past number of years than we have had. I suspect we would have had much less of a crisis than we now have in the health sector — fewer problems and less hardship. If we had had that sort of performance in the health and other sectors, we would have much less unemployment today. We know the old saying: "Pay peanuts and you get monkeys". While we are still very lucky to have in this House, in the other House and in the public service people of very great ability, they are only human and they will be attracted by better salaries and better conditions elsewhere. This is a very serious point. It is a very basic problem in how we do things. It is a very major flaw. If we are to get this economy going again, one major change will have to be introduced, that is, of being able to reward achievement in the public sector.

To come precisely to the Bill, I have no doubt that what is proposed in it would meet with a very warm welcome indeed among the general public. That is understandable, especially when there are so many people living on, for instance, £35 or £36 per week. However, this is a much greater question than just individual sacrifices of a few former Ministers. The question is, how do we get into this House people who are capable of and are drawing substantial salaries and earning them in the private sector? How do we import into this House that sort of business acumen?

Miss Colley

We start by making the Members worth looking up to, I would submit.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I would submit that you do not do that by running down a profession in the way that the Deputy's colleague, Deputy Harney, has just done for half an hour.

Miss Colley

It is a difference of interpretation.

Mr. J. Mitchell

If we are going to raise the level of this House, we must first stop waving flags which we know are popular but totally insincere.

Miss Colley

What is the Deputy inferring?

Mr. J. Mitchell

It is very evident that a significant part of the motivation of the Progressive Democrats towards this Bill is to milk it for all it is worth politically. It has less to do with self-sacrifice.

Miss Harney

Is it any wonder we are very cynical?

Mr. J. Mitchell

It is no wonder there is cynicism, but the point that I am making is that the partly cynical exercise on behalf of the Progressive Democrats — and I am sorry that I am riling them into heckling me persistently——

Miss Colley

For what reason?

Mr. J. Mitchell

I do not mean to provoke them. I want them and the whole House to think more about the more fundamental question. How do we attract the best people into the public service, including this House, on the presumption that that would, indeed, be a great step forward in resolving our economic problems today and avoiding some of the economic mistakes we have made in the past?

Proinsias De Rossa

I am a little bemused by Deputy Mitchell's assumption that it is only people of quality who get paid high salaries and that there are no people outside this House, or outside the public sector, or the managerial sector who are low paid and are of low quality. That is a wrong assumption and the Deputy should give it a bit more thought; he would then appreciate the point.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I have made the point that there are people of quality serving.

Proinsias De Rossa

The assumption that Deputies are only prepared to serve in this House on the basis of getting a large amount of money, or serve in ministerial office for that reason, is doing a disservice to Deputies and to Ministers in this House who have considerable responsibility and who, when all is said and done, do make many sacrifices. That is true of many of the people who run our State companies also, the very many who have not run off to the private sector because they were offered an extra £10,000 or £15,000. We should challenge the notion that the only people remaining in the public sector are those who cannot get higher rates outside of it. That is patently untrue. We have many successful public sector companies which have been run for many years by people on incomes which are far lower than they could receive outside of it.

The Workers' Party support this Bill. There would have been some surprise if we had indicated that we were not going to support this Bill but we do not consider that it is not a complete response to the scandal which we have raised over a number of years in this House of the payment of ministerial pensions and as to how they are handled at present. If and when this Bill reaches Committee Stage we would hope to be in a position to table amendments which we feel would strengthen its provisions. It is worth reminding the House that the present system of payment of ministerial pensions was introduced following the Shanley Report of 1937. That fact has been stated by a number of speakers. It is significant that it is now 50 years since the system was introduced and apart from any other argument in relation to them they clearly require another look. The fact that they have existed for 50 years and went virtually unchallenged in this House until recent times is also significant.

It was only in 1983 when The Workers' Party raised a series of questions with regard to them that it became a topical subject for public debate. Up until then it had received very little public or media attention. The reaction of the public to the information which those questions did elicit could be described as one of fury. The public quite rightly saw a great contrast between the continual calls for belt tightening which was being prescribed for them by one and all and the feather bedding of former Ministers by way of pensions. Indeed, there have been few other issues which have caused such public indignation and the reaction on the door step was so great that it forced many Deputies and some parties to change their positions on the issue.

Before turning to the Bill itself and dealing with the question of ministerial pensions in more detail, I would like to make a few points about the position of The Workers' Party on the general issue of payment for Deputies and Ministers. It is the policy of The Workers' Party that Deputies and Ministers are entitled to be paid adequately for the jobs they perform. Indeed, the introduction of salaries for members of Parliament was an absolutely essential reform of the system which assisted in the evolution of a fully representative Parliament both here and in Britain. It was a reform which the Labour movement in Britain had fought for for many years and had it never been brought in the possibility is that there would never have been a Labour Government in Britain or Labour or Workers' Party representation in this House.

The principle is that salaries are necessary so that membership of the Dáil does not become the sole preserve of businessmen, self-employed, farmers, auctioneers, lawyers and so on many of whom can participate quite easily in the Dáil, survive without a Dáil salary and still live quite comfortably on their incomes from other sources. The Workers' Party hold that Deputies are entitled to be adequately paid. Most members of the public, we believe, support this principle. However, the other side of that coin is that the taxpayers who pay our salaries are entitled to expect that Deputies should earn their money and in particular if Deputies receive a full salary they should be doing a full time job. It is a fact that there are many Members of this House who are only part time politicians and who also have substantial incomes from business and professional interests. There are people in this House who also work as accountants, solicitors, publicans, farmers, auctioneers and as medical consultants and so on while drawing their Dáil salaries. The payment of a full salary to a Deputy should be dependent on him treating his office as a full time position.

In the same way we accept that many Ministers carry a huge workload and greater responsibility and it is reasonable that they should be paid a sum over and above a Deputy's salary for the additional work which they have to do. However, there are many other perquisites and privileges attached to the position of Minister such as the provision of a State car, driver and the use in some cases of up to six civil servants to do their constituency work. These factors should be taken into account when ministerial salaries are being fixed. Indeed, another anomaly in relation to this wider issue is the fact that we have a number of former Taoisigh in this House who still have State cars and drivers. I recognise that there are security reasons involved but it is an unnecessary drain that former Taoisigh should forever and a day retain the use of a State car and drivers.

I will now turn to deal with the specific question of pensions. One of the main objections to the present system is that pensions can be paid to former Ministers after serving only three years in office. This means that some Ministers who are still only in their mid-30's can look forward to a pension for the rest of their lives and in some cases this can mean for 40 or 50 years, we hope. Even at the lowest level of income which a Minister of State could expect to receive it is a rate of pension well in excess of that which we pay to a widow or a widower. A former Minister or Minister of State who qualifies for a pension in this way will still draw a Dáil salary and many of these will also have an income from business or professional interests. At a time when we are being lectured by every single Government Minister on the need for belt tightening and at a time when hospital wards are being closed all over the country, when social welfare is being cut back and free education is being undermined this privileged treatment of former Ministers cannot be justified. No other part of the public sector or indeed any part of the private sector pays a pension after three years of service.

Most pension schemes in the public service require a worker to put in 40 years of service to qualify for a full pension and even then they will only qualify for half their salary. The normal qualifying age is between 60 and 65 years of age. Some schemes of course provide for earlier retirement at a reduced pension rate. The basic principles applying to pension schemes in the public service should also be applied to ministerial pensions. There should be no privileged treatment for politicians. The Workers' Party favour the establishment of an income-related pension scheme as part of a revamped social insurance scheme. We believe that only a State scheme can cater effectively for all categories of employees as well as the self-employed covering all eventualities and circumstances in a manner which the private pensions industry is unwilling or perhaps unable to do. Had we such a national income-related pensions scheme the need for special individual pension schemes for Ministers, Deputies, Army officers, civil servants, journalists, bus workers or any other type of worker would be done away with. Everybody would qualify for a pension related to their service and income. Obviously this is a long term proposition and, in the present climate, is unlikely to be acted on in full at any rate. However, the previous Government established the National Pensions Board which produced a first report last summer which contained many important recommendations and suggestions which could be acted on.

One of the difficulties for people elected to this House for the first time is that they may have been paying into a pension scheme — a public sector or private pension scheme — but they cannot transfer their pension rights into the Dáil pensions scheme. This applies not merely to Deputies but to the many people who change their jobs or careers, particularly those who change from the public to the private sector or vice versa. The report of the National Pensions Board recommended specifically that there should be transferability of pension entitlements. Certainly that is a recommendation that should be acted on without delay.

The main argument in recent years in defence of ministerial pensions is that they are not really pensions, as such, but rather a special sort of compensation for loss of opportunity and earnings while holding the position of Minister. Ovbiously that argument falls on the basis of the first example I gave in the case of a Minister or a Minister of State who ceases to hold such office after three years, who remains a Dáil Deputy, say, in his or her mid-thirties. We are expected to accept that such person will be compensated for the next 30 to 40 years for whatever responsibility he or she had which is completely unreasonable.

In his opening remarks the Minister for Finance referred to 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. This was exactly the argument advanced by the Shanley Committee in 1937. It hardly withstands examination in the eighties when a Minister's earnings are about four times the average industrial wage. While Ministers are not permitted to take part in the day to day operations of other business interests they might have, is anybody really asking us to accept that a Minister who, say, owns a farm takes no interest whatsoever in that farm while in office, or indeed reaps no benefit from it, or that a Minister who, say, owns a business takes no interest in or benefit from the operations of that firm? In addition, many of those who were involved in specific careers such as teaching, before becoming full time politicians, are simply on leave of absence and can revert to that career. I have already mentioned the fact that there are people in this House in receipt of ministerial pensions who are engaged in full time professional careers as well.

The point is that, despite odd exceptions like the 1977 General Elections, most Ministers do not lose their Dáil seats and will still have their Dáil salary to support them. Many of the arguments advanced in defence of ministerial pensions are false and carry all the hallmarks of those put forward by people who know they are defending the indefensible.

I might turn briefly to the specific details of the Bill before us. The Bill provides only that ministerial pensions would not be paid to persons who hold other public offices, mainly in the political or judicial areas. The main flaw in the Bill is that its provisions would still allow a Minister who has held office for three years only and who decides to get out of politics altogether — even though he or she might be in their thirties only — to draw a substantial pension for the rest of his or her life even though he or she might have a good income from another position in the public or private sector. Where is the logic in saying that a former Minister who is a judge cannot draw a pension, but that a former Minister who goes back to work as a teacher or for a semi-State company can do so?

The Progresive Democrats' Bill would constitute a step forward but would leave anomalies needing to be dealt with. There is need for a more fundamental review of the system of remuneration of Deputies and Ministers and especially of the pensions schemes. A number of Deputies have made the point that a Deputy with 20 years experience receives the same salary only as a Deputy on his or her first day in the Dáil. There have even been suggestions that ministerial pensions were meant to compensate for that anomaly. Arguments appear to be put forward that these pensions are to compensate for all sorts of anomalies. Many Deputies with long service have never held ministerial office. It is a valid criticism of the system of salaries for Deputies that the civil servants who work in this House have a system of increments for length of service. There is no reason the same principle should not be applicable to Deputies' salaries.

In relation to pensions we believe that ministerial pensions should be abolished. There should be an income-related pensions scheme for all Members of the Dáil which would take into consideration the additional earnings of those who have held ministerial office. We believe the full pension should be payable in the same way as it applies in the general public service after a minimum of 20 years service. No pension should be paid while a person remains a Member of the Oireachtas, the full pension being payable only on reaching the age of 60 or 65. A reduced rate, on a sliding scale, could be paid in the case of Members with less than 20 years service on reaching the age of 60 or 65, subject to a minimum qualifying period of, say, eight years.

Some allowance should be made for the particularly uncertain nature of a Deputy's position in that, in effect, he or she can be summarily dismissed by the electorate. Perhaps Deputies who lose their seats should qualify for a type of redundancy lump sum in the same way as do other workers who lose their jobs.

The failure of successive Governments to deal with the scandal of ministerial pensions has contributed enormously to the sense of disillusionment with which many of the electorate view our political system. All parties have been party to this failure which is reflected in relatively low turn-outs at elections, particularly on the part of those who are not in secure jobs or in receipt of very good incomes. A serious attempt to end this abuse, to abolish the exceptional privilege afforded to former Ministers, could contribute to a restoration of public confidence in the political system, an objective to which I am sure all Deputies are committed.

Limited though this Bill is we support it purely as a device in an effort to eliminate a particular abuse of and anomaly in the system. We do not support the general context within which the Bill has been introduced, that is, in the context of abolishing the Seanad, reducing the number of seats in the Dáil and various other abolitions being proposed by the Progressive Democrats, such as their proposal to abolish certain health boards, local authorities, VECs and so on. We accept the need for institutional reform but we do not accept the case for narrowing the base for representation in the Dáil or Seanad or at the level of local democracy. We argue for a broadening of democratic representation. We do not agree with the abolition of the multi-seat constituency system or the abolition of proportional representation. We feel, however unconscious it may be, the proposals being put forward by the Progressive Democrats are essentially undemocratic. I believe they would lead to a lessening of people's involvement in our democratic system at a time when we should be encouraging a greater and deeper understanding of democracy.

Mr. Cullen

I am delighted to have the opportunity to support this Bill which is fundamental legislation being put before this House. We, the Progressive Democrats, have received a mandate to lay this before the House, and that should not be overlooked. I feel that, unlike many Deputies, I can approach this Bill in a very unbiased way as I was fortunate to have the freedom to allow my political philosophy to mature. I was not subjected to any of the biased political philosophies of bygone ages and therefore, what I say tonight is truly representative of current thinking in the country. I can truly say, as a 33 year old, that I represent the youth of this country who in many instances have not got the opportunity to speak in a forum such as this. Indeed, I feel it is a rare privilege.

Many of the speakers I have listened to in the past week would have us believe that there is some mystery about this Bill or that it is couched in terms that cover all degrees of legislation or matters that occur in this House. However, that is clearly not the case. This is a simple and fundamental matter of principle, nothing more or less. It is about whether people should receive pensions who are still active in public life and in receipt of their salaries. I believe that is fundamentally wrong and in present circumstances is an affront to many citizens. I was surprised that Deputy Mitchell referred to individual Deputies in this party on so many occasions. I take grave exception to his remark that this is political opportunism which is being vented on this side of the House. It certainly is not and I would not be here with a mandate to speak on such an issue if it was political opportunism, or if the people saw it that way. I assure him that I did not come into the House with the prospect of receiving a ministerial pension if I were to have an opportunity to serve in Government. That is not why I am here.

I am not trying to deride or demean the process. This is the process whereby duly elected public representatives get the opportunity to examine their consciences and it is being done in a very fair and orderly manner. It is Deputy Mitchell who is bringing the Bill into disrepute because he is incapable of finding any fundamental arguments against it. I assure him that it is not a minor point for Deputies Desmond O'Malley and Robert Molloy to give up their pensions. It was a fundamental matter of deep heart searching as the Deputies are not in receipt of other large incomes apart from their salaries. They saw that the principle of receiving a pension while in receipt of a salary from this House was wrong. They were prepared not only to back legislation to have that changed but to lead by example. That is one of the reasons I am in this House and, indeed, why the Progressive Democrats are here. As long as we are here and I can draw breath, I will stand up and speak on matters and give a lead to the politicians and, more importantly, to the people. It is equally important to give the youth a voice in this House.

Last week I was amazed when listening to the Minister for Finance, Deputy MacSharry making a four page speech, that all he could talk about was something that had occurred in 1937. I found it amazing that he was incapable of addressing any of the issues or, as I said earlier, one fundamental issue. Events which occurred in 1937 may have been right for 1937, but I assure him they are not right for 1987 particularly in present economic circumstances. This was the sum total of the argument put forward. Am I to believe that legislation or rules and regulations enacted over a long number of years are in some way sacrosanct and cannot be changed by the Members of this House? I remind Members that this is the forum for addressing these matters. The Oireachtas is the Legislature of the country and it is where decisions are made. The Minister for Finance, Deputy MacSharry, also referred to the Gleeson review committee. While I wish the Gleeson committee every success in the many issues they will address with which I agree and which are correct, ironically the committee do not address the issue of people in receipt of pensions who are also in receipt of a salary. As this issue is not being addressed by the Gleeson Committee it is wrong to hide behind the committee and, in my opinion, demean the very important work they are doing in other areas and to gloss over the fundamental thrust of what they are doing. That is fundamentally wrong and the Minister was incorrect to do so.

There is an acceptance by all the Deputies sitting here this evening — I know it and they know it — that the fundamental principle being addressed in this Bill is correct. Many Deputies in all parties in receipt of pensions know it is wrong. Yet they are all afraid to address this issue. In the quiet corridors of this building they will admit that the thrust of this Bill is correct. Yet they have not the courage to come into this House and say to Members and to the public that what this Bill proposes is correct and fundamental to Irish democracy and the way it should go forward.

This Bill provokes discussion. Many other Members have addressed other issues raised by this Bill which for too long were not addressed. However, other Members seek to hide behind the issues raised but I assure the House they will be dealt with in legislation. It appals me that of the 166 Deputies elected, the majority — all except 14 PDs who have been joined by The Workers' Party who have had the courage to support this Bill — are afraid to get up and say what they know in their hearts to be true.

We live in an age of unprecedented cutbacks affecting every single sector of the community, from the extremely poor to the middle class and the wealthy. Services are being cut back right across the board and yet we see the comical efforts of the Taoiseach launching a national plan last week in which he gives an increase guaranteed for the next three years to people in the public service while, at the same time, telling the rest of the people they will have to put up with fewer services and pay for many of them as well. Where is the justice in that approach? In my opinion there is no justice and the people are saying that.

Why can the matter not be addressed by the people of this House? Many changes are needed in the structures, some of which have been referred to. I take issue with Deputy De Rossa's remarks that this party are in some way being undemocratic by requesting a reduction in the total number of Deputies. From my experience as a new Deputy I see that a large proportion of the Deputies only appear at a head count when it comes to voting and being whipped into the lobbies. Some of the Deputies never get an opportunity or want the opportunity to speak in this forum. This country cannot afford that luxury and it is about time those issues were addressed. This country could have great opportunities and a future if only the duly elected Members had the gumption and courage to face the difficult decisions. I can assure them that they will never find this party lacking in that kind of support when those issues are put before this House.

This is the dawning of a new era in Irish politics, whether Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour want to think otherwise. The Progressive Democrats are here to stay and to increase and we will have a major influence on politics. The catty remarks which have been passed in this House about our Deputies and party will not make us go away and stop us bringing forward ministerial pensions Bills. It is not going to stop us looking for reforms in the public service. It is not to get at the public service, but to see a more efficient body and to recognise the talent that is contained in the public service. We want to give that talent the forum whereby it can show initiative in its own right and stand up and get on with the job so that people are not confined in an archaic system of annual increments and gradings. There are something like 92 grades in the public service. How can one expect efficiency to work in such an archaic system? This country does not need this at this time: it needs courage, confidence and leadership. The only leadership being offered is by this party and it is being offered by the likes of Deputies Des O'Malley and Bobby Molloy. They are prepared to bring forward legislation which will address the issues and to carry it through.

During the election campaign one of the anomalies which was raised by voters was the incorrectness of people in public life receiving pensions. There was a genuine mandate given to us to bring legislation dealing with this before the House. It is very important that we are seen to do this and that we get people to stand up and support this legislation. If this legislation is implemented people will have their confidence restored because they will realise that at last the leadership which they have wanted for so long is in Leinster House. I am confident that that leadership is in the Progressive Democrats. I am asking the other parties to show their leadership qualities by supporting this Bill.

Miss Kennedy

I am amazed at the attitude of the other political parties in the House to this Bill which seeks to abolish ministerial pensions. So far the Government have only put in one Minister, the Minister for Finance, and one other speaker on this issue. To date, the Fine Gael Party have put in two speakers, the Labour Party one speaker and The Workers' Party one speaker. I am the fifth Member of the Progressive Democrats to speak in favour of this Bill and I think the other parties say an awful lot by their silence. They are afraid, of course, to stand up and say they disagree with the Bill because they know that the public feel that the ministerial pensions being given to former office holders is a great anomaly.

The other two parties have washed their hands of the issue. They say they are not the arbiters of ministerial pensions and that a committee are considering this issue. I wish to point out to the House that we are the legislators and we can change this law and any other law affecting people. This House should decide on this issue. I ask the Government and, in particular the Fine Gael Party, to reconsider their voting positions for next week. I know from speaking privately to Members of the House that they agree that the payment of ministerial pensions is an anomaly. They agree that the Progressive Democrats have embarrassed them by bringing this Bill before the House and yet, they are afraid to stand up and speak their minds on the matter.

It is an issue like ministerial pensions, and not the advent of this Bill by the Progressive Democrats, that brings politics and politicians generally into disrepute. The people I met during the general election campaign latched on to this issue because it symbolised for them their disillusionment with politics and politicians generally. I remember there was a story in the papers at that time saying that a former Deputy, Michael O'Leary, had received a ministerial pension of some £7,000 on his retirement from politics. People were appalled at this. That was why, when we proposed this Bill at election time, we got a mandate from the people to bring it forward.

Earlier this evening Deputy Mitchell questioned our motive in bringing forward this Bill. The reason we brought it forward was because we promised it to the people at election time and we are fulfilling that mandate. Unlike the Government who went around making all sorts of promises which they are not now fulfilling, we are bringing this Bill forward because we said we would do so.

I want to refer to the question of money which seems to be such an embarrassment for all politicians. I feel I can speak on this matter with a perfectly clear conscience because, in effect, today I am earning less as a TD than I did as a political correspondent. I earned more money in 1980 and 1981, than I am earning as a TD today.

Mr. N. Treacy

Bonuses.

Miss Kennedy

I would like to commend the action of the Leader of the Progressive Democrats, Deputy Des O'Malley, and Deputy Bobby Molloy for giving up their ministerial pensions in order to give leadership on this issue and to put pressure on the other political parties to change the law. Without going into any personal details of their cases, I know very well that both of these gentlemen can ill afford to do without one-third of their salaries at present. I do not think it is right that a person of the calibre of Deputy Des O'Malley should be paid the same as somebody such as myself who is only a wet day in the Dáil. Former Ministers such as Deputy Michael Noonan and Deputy Jim Mitchell on the Fine Gael benches have been receiving pensions of over £6,000 for the past year. Because they have contributed to public life by serving in Cabinet and being part of a Government, they deserve some recognition of that contribution to public life in their salaries. As I said already, I do not think it is right that somebody of the calibre of Deputy Des O'Malley should be paid the same money as I am paid.

Even Deputy Michael Noonan recognised what is wrong with the issue of ministerial pensions. The word "pension" is seen as something which is paid to a person in their retirement. Somehow or other it is associated with old age. When one looks at somebody like Deputy George Birmingham in the Fine Gael Party one certainly cannot say that he is heading for retirement or old age. Yet, he is now in receipt of a ministerial pension. That is the issue which has annoyed so many people and it is why there is so much public support for this Bill. I would like to commend the action of the President, Dr. Hillery, in handing back——

An Ceann Comhairle

I have already asked Members not to refer to the President.

Miss Kennedy

The people of Ireland support him in his action. As I pointed out already, we got a mandate to bring forward this Bill. We got a mandate also to bring forward proposals for different areas of Dáil reform such as the abolition of the Seanad and a diminution in the number of TDs. We have put forward a number of policies on institutional reform. This is the first one we have brought before the House. Let there be no doubt that, by rejecting our Bill, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are again signing a blank cheque to continue paying their ministerial pensions. In public terms that, in effect, is what they are now doing, even though their members will call members of the Progressive Democrats aside privately and say: "Yes, you are right but we are not going to do anything about it".

Mr. Kenny

That is not true.

Miss Kennedy

That has been said to me during the past week by senior members of the Deputy's party who are in receipt of ministerial pensions.

Miss Harney

Does Deputy Kenny speak for everybody in his party?

Mr. Kenny

No.

Miss Kennedy

We believe the time has come when people in this House should make decisions for themselves. They can change this law. There is no need to wait for proposals on this issue from another committee. People can indicate their attitudes on this ministerial pensions Bill by voting with the Progressive Democrats next Wednesday night.

Deputy Mitchell questioned our motivation in bringing forward this issue. First, he said he admired the sacrifice of the two individuals concerned and then he turned and said it was a minor point. It is not a minor point for two senior Deputies of this House who have families at a very expensive stage in their education to turn over £7,000 and £8,000 of their salaries, one-third, probably, in each case, in order to try to change a law which the public will not recognise. Though other politicians in this House may try to discredit them, the public will know better than the politicians in this case.

Deputy Mitchell also raised a broader question when he asked how do we order our public affairs in this House. This is precisely the question the Progressive Democrats are putting to the other parties on this Bill.

Debate adjourned.