I had just commenced speaking when the House adjourned last week and I want to repeat for the record that I favour the abolition of pensions for serving Dáil Members. However, a much wider question has to be addressed. If the present system of payments for Members of the Oireachtas, especially those with long service, is terminated, then the whole area of parliamentary allowances must be examined in tandem. This is the weakness of the proposal put forward by the Progressive Democrats who, in my view, have addressed one question without addressing the other. For that reason I strongly suspect their motives in bringing this Bill forward and I believe that is a reasonable suspicion to express. The Progressive Democrats want the abolition of the Seanad. They have doubts about the need for a President and want to reduce the number of TDs. This is a useful subject for debate but it has to be considered with the other proposals they are putting forward.
The most common complaint I receive from my constituents at election time is that they do not see me often enough, despite the fact that I am supposed to have the reputation in this House of spending more time in my constituency than the average TD. I admit that I spend a lot of time in my constituency but I also find a lot of time to spend in this House. I wonder if it is in the best interests of democracy to go along the line suggested by the Progressive Democrats. If we do, it could happen that 51 Members could elect a dictator. I am very anxious that we do not undermine our parliamentary democracy.
The cost of running the Parliament — the Dáil, the Seanad, staff and pensions — in 1987 will be £13 million. This contrasts favourably with the expenditure for the Department of Health, £1,169 million, the Department of Social Welfare, £1,560 million, the Department of Defence, £301 million, the Department of Education, £1,100 million and the Department of the Environment, £865 million. Exactly how much is the abolition of these so called pensions to save the State? The reality is that it will cost the State and it is important that this be outlined in this House. If these pensions are abolished TDs would have to be properly remunerated. Many of us run our parliamentary careers like the self-employed with a turnover of approximately £20,000 a year, taking into account all allowances and income. Out of this £20,000 we have to pay for our cars, the use of our home telephones for parliamentary and public purposes, internal travel in our consitituency and many other things. None of us is paid extra money to take on additional responsibility whether it be front bench responsibility or the chairmanship of a committee. This would not be tolerated anywhere in the public or private service.
Let us abolish these pensions, but let us reward people for service, for being spokesmen, for chairmanships and so on. Let us be consistent with what is being done elsewhere in the public service. It should not be said on the one hand that we should not be treated differently from members of the public service, and then treated differently. If we abolish pensions we will have to address both sides of the equation.
Many of the most vociferous critics of Parliament never have anything to say about other institutions. One of those institutions, the Judiciary, which in my view is grossly in need of reform, has been the subject of defensive action by Members of this House on many occasions. In a democracy it is only right that Parliament should be open to criticism but is it necessary for Members to promote their own interests by abusing this right and attempting to make a virtue out of it? There are, in this Parliament, representatives of doubtful democratic origin and it seems that the Progressive Democrats are increasingly competing with these people for that strange segment of the people who do not see the need for a Parliament.
Our people need to be reminded of the fact that this is one of only 15 parliamentary democracies left. Until very recently many Members would have put Fiji on that list. In my view the existence of this House, of Seanad Éireann, of the Presidency, of Members with long service and also of new Members is something to be cherished. A democracy has to be paid for and if we look at the Estimates we will find that the amount allocated to the Houses of the Oireachtas is miniscule when compared with other Departments. I believe we get good value for the money spent.
I accept that there is need for reform in this House, but not necessarily when compared with other Parliaments. Let us look at the House of Commons with 660 Members and the House of Lords with 2,000 plus members and the village squire system. Is it being said that Members of the British Parliament work harder than we do? Where is the better Parliament with which people are comparing us? Members of the House of Commons get better remuneration than TDs, they have better pensions and they work shorter hours. Most of them do not start work until the afternoon because of commitments in the City. That is not so in this House.
With what parliament are we comparing ourselves? People constantly tell us we should not spend so much time on constituency business and perhaps they are right, but the fact is — and I have checked this with Members of other Legislatures — they all get social welfare queries. In the House of Commons Members representing marginal constituencies, highly paid Members of the Tory Administration, have computers in their offices so that they can get in touch directly with the computer file in the Department. In places like America, Senators send birthday cards to their constituents.