I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Bill, 1991: Second Stage.
Not agreed.
The main purpose of this Bill is to give effect to recommendations of the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector in relation to: expenses of Members of this House and of the Seanad; a scheme of severance payments for TDs and Senators; and changes in the pension regime for ministerial and parliamentary office holders, and a system of severance pay for these office holders.
As regards the expenses of Members, this is an area which has given rise to a lot of misunderstanding among the general public. As the House is aware the remuneration of TDs and Senators — which is described in legislation as an allowance — comprises both a salary element and an element in respect of expenses. This annual allowance is treated for tax purposes as salary notwithstanding that TDs and Senators are expected to meet a large proportion of their working expenses out of it. In recognition of this, the Revenue Commissioners treat fixed amounts of the annual allowance as being referable to expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred by a typical TD or Senator and therefore not subject to tax.
The review body considered this arrangement in detail and concluded that it was unsatisfactory in a number of respects. The following extract from their report No. 30, paragraph 9.8, gives a good indication of their general conclusions. I quote:
The way in which the remuneration of TDs and Senators is structured (a single allowance with a fixed component being treated by the Revenue Commissioners as recoupment of expenses and thereby exempt from tax) gives rise to controversy and confusion. The impression is created that politicians receive particularly favourable income tax treatment; in fact the arrangements are less favourable than those applicable to most employees (who expect their reasonable expenses to be met in full by their employer and not merely treated as tax-deductible). In addition there is a natural tendency to regard the full amount of a TD's or Senator's allowance as remuneration whereas only part of it (the so-called salary element) represents remuneration and the balance represents expenses which must be met out of the allowance ...
I think we would all agree with the review body's conclusions in these respects. Few of us have avoided being at the receiving end of critical comments related to the type of perceptions they refer to.
The review body also make the point that it is inappropriate that under the present arrangement the Revenue Commissioners should be placed in the position of being required to determine what is a reasonable allowance for expenses for TDs and Senators. They regard the present arrangements which attempt to accommodate the unique circumstances applying to Members of the Oireachtas within taxation provisions designed to deal with the circumstances of employees generally, as unsatisfactory. They have gone on to conclude that the present arrangements should be replaced by a straightforward system of remuneration for TDs and Senators which distinguishes clearly between salary and provision for expenses.
They considered that the ideal arrangement would be one where both TDs and Senators would be paid clearly identifiable salaries and would be reimbursed by the State for all expenses reasonably and properly incurred in the exercise of their functions — this happens at present in the case of some expenses, such as travel and subsistence. They felt, however, that it would be administratively very difficult to operate a system of claim and recoupment in this way in relation to all expenses.
The review body concluded that the best approach would be to fix a uniform sum to meet a reasonable amount of the expenses which are necessarily incurred by TDs and Senators in carrying out their duties and which are not otherwise reimbursed; to pay this sum as a separate allowance distinct from their normal parliamentary allowance; and to provide for this allowance to be regarded as recoupment of expenses and, therefore, nontaxable and non-pensionable.
The review body recommended in November 1987 that the allowance for expenses should be £3,500 per annum in the case of a TD and £1,750 per annum in the case of a Senator. They also recommended a mechanism by which the rate of the allowance would be increased from time to time. Application of that mechanism would bring the allowance to over £4,000 in the case of a TD and £2,000 in the case of a Senator. Rather than provide for specific amounts at a time when the review body are once again examining this whole issue as part of their review of top level salaries, I think it better to make provision for the determination by way of ministerial regulation of the initial amounts of the allowance and of the method of future revision of the allowances. This approach will allow for more flexibility in implementing whatever recommendations emerge from the current review body study.
The review body also recommended that on payment of this expenses allowance the parliamentary allowances should represent salary only and that claims for deductions for tax purposes in respect of expenses against those salaries should no longer be allowed. This is being provided for.
As regards office holders, the review body felt that their expenses were lower in some areas and higher in others than those of ordinary Members and concluded that the best and fairest approach would be for office holders to receive the expenses allowance applicable to the House of which they are Members but not to receive any additional expense allowance. As in the case of ordinary Members it was recommended that salaries should be fully taxable and that no claims for deductions in respect of expenses should be allowed, with one exception. The exception relates to the deduction referred to as the "dual abode allowance".
The dual abode tax allowance may be claimed by members of the Government and Ministers of State who represent constituencies outside Dublin and who are obliged by virtue of their duties as office holder and as TD to maintain a residence both in Dublin and in their constituency. The allowance may be claimed in respect of the expenditure incurred in maintaining one or other residence subject to a maximum allowance of £7,728. The review body recommended that claims for deduction in respect of expenses under the dual abode heading should continue to be allowed by the Revenue Commissioners because the numbers involved were small and the benefit varied depending on expenses actually incurred. This is being provided for and, in addition, I am proposing that the allowance should also be available to Senators who fulfil the necessary conditions and to the Attorney General on fulfilling similar conditions provided the Attorney General is a Member of the Oireachtas and has, therefore, two roles to discharge.
In summary, one of the main purposes of this Bill is to implement these recommendations of the review body relating to the restructuring of Members' remuneration. It provides that in addition to salary Members will receive an allowance to cover the expenses incurred by them which are not otherwise reimbursed; in that context it removes the ability of Members to claim deductions in respect of expenses incurred as part of their parliamentary duties under the Income Tax Act, 1967. Accordingly, on the introduction of the allowance for expenses the present tax deductions of £6,901 per annum in the case of a TD and £3,810 per annum in the case of a Senator will cease as will the deductions available to office holders other than the dual abode allowance. The parliamentary allowance will be designated as salary and will be taxed in the same way as the salary of any other member of the community. The effect of paying the new allowances and removing the present tax deductions will vary depending on individual circumstances. In general, however, TDs would gain somewhat while there would be a loss for office holders — the position of Senators would also be somewhat improved.
I am satisfied that the system recommended by the review body is a much more satisfactory and equitable way of dealing with the remuneration and expenses of parliamentarians than the present system. It should also help to remove the confusion among the general public about the remuneration of TDs and Senators and the mistaken impression that they receive special tax concessions.
In report No. 30, the review body also examined the position of TDs and Senators who, on leaving office, very often find themselves in severe financial difficulties. These problems can be exacerbated by the fact that, unlike most of the workforce, Members of the Oireachtas, whose security of employment is tenuous to say the least, are not covered by the Social Welfare Acts, the Redundancy Payments Acts or the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act. The review body, while noting that the Houses of the Oireachtas (Members) Pension Scheme is structured so as to take some account of the hazards and uncertainties of political life, concluded that the introduction of a scheme of severance payments for outgoing Members would be justified.
The review body accordingly recommended in report No. 30 that Members of the Oireachtas who have at least two years unbroken service, and who are defeated at a general election should, in effect, continue to be paid their parliamentary salaries for a period of up to three months from polling day. They also recommended that the pensions scheme be amended to ensure that any pension to which a defeated Member might be entitled does not commence until payments under the new severance scheme have ceased.
Section 5 of this Bill provides for a scheme of severance payments for Deputies and Senators along the lines recommended by the review body. However, since the Bill was published and circulated to Deputies last week, mention has been made of the length of the severance payment period, which is limited to three months at maximum, as compared with the severance scheme for Ministerial and parliamentary office holders, under which payments can be made for up to two years. I have to say to the House that as far as the Government are concerned, there can be no question of improving on the severance payments arrangements for Deputies and Senators as outlined in section 5 without a further input from the review body.
I have discussed the matter with my Cabinet colleagues, and we consider that the best way of addressing the expressed concerns of Members would be for the Government to formally request the review body to undertake a special examination of the appropriate cesser-of-office benefits for outgoing Members of the Oireachtas. This examination would encompass the provisions of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Members) pensions scheme as well as the question of limited term severance payments, and the review body would be asked to report on the outcome of its deliberations at an early date.
On the assumption that the approach set out above is acceptable to Members generally, I would intend — on Committee Stage — to propose an amendment to the Bill, the effect of which would be to replace the text of section 5 of the Bill as initiated with a more flexible provision, of an enabling nature. This amendment, if approved, would enable the Government to consider and — by way of regulations — take appropriate action on the finding of the review body when these become available, without the necessary of bringing further primary legislation before the Oireachtas.
It is possible that on foot of the special reference, the review body will make recommendations affecting the operation of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Members) pensions scheme. further legislation would not be required to give effect to such recommendations — as Members are aware, the terms of the pensions scheme can be changed by means of an amending scheme.
The Bill also gives effect to review body recommendations on changes in the existing arrangements governing pensions for ministerial and parliamentary office holders. These recommendations are contained in report No. 31 of the review body, which was drawn up following a request in November 1987 from the then Minister for Finance that the review body should examine and report on the allowances and pension entitlements of members of the Government, Ministers of State, the Attorney General, the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and the Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach of the Seanad.
The Minister's request followed the passing of a motion in this House on 28 October 1987 supporting a review body examination of the ministerial pensions issue, which had attracted a good deal of public comment at that time — much of it ill-informed, in my personal opinion. The review body concluded that those features of the existing ministerial pension system which were most criticised, viz. the absence of a minimum age limit for payment of pension, and the fact that pensions were payable when the recipients had left ministerial office but continued to serve in the Dáil or Seanad, arose because the existing system tried simultaneously to address two separate needs of office holders. These are the "long term" need for some degree of financial security in retirement, and the "short term" need to redress the more immediate financial problems which can arise when office holders, who have cut themselves off more or less completely from their previous careers, lose office, usually at quite short notice.
——a day's notice.
The approach adopted by the review body was that the pension provisions for office holders should focus more on their long term needs, and that their short term financial problems should be dealt with through the introduction of a scheme of severance payments, extending over a period of two years at maximum. That being said, the review body were fully cognisant that, overall their recommendations would represent a disimprovement on existing arrangements and that, over time, the new terms would involve a saving to the Exchequer.
On the basis of this approach, the review body recommended that a new pension regime be introduced for office holders, the principal features of which are as follows: (a) a new scale of service related pension rates to apply, with a minimum rate of 25 per cent of salary for an office holder with three years' service, rising at the rate of 5 per cent of salary for for each additional year to a maximum of 60 per cent of salary for an office holder with ten years' service or more — the current pension maxima are 45 per cent of salary for a member of the Government, the Attorney General or the Ceann Comhairle, and 51 per cent of salary for other office holders; (b) pensions not be payable in the normal course before age 55, except in cases of permanent ill-health, persons aged 50 and over to be allowed to apply for immediate pension, but at an actuarially reduced rate; and (c) pension to be abated by 50 per cent so long as the recipient remains a Member of the Dáil, the Seanad or the European Parliament — except in the case of a former Taoiseach.
In conjunction with this new pension regime, the review body recommended the introduction of a scheme where a former office holder would receive a proportion of the salary appropriate to his former office for a period equal to his last unbroken period of service, subject to a maximum of two years. The proportion of salary payable would be 75 per cent of salary for the first six months, 50 per cent for the next 12 months and 25 per cent for the final six months. These severance payments would cease if the recipient returned to office, and would not be paid at the same time as pension, but a recipient could opt to have the severance payment discontinued at any time to allow his (or her) pension payments to commence. The review body recommended that separate severance arrangements should apply in the case of a former Taoiseach, because of the special position of that office in the national life.
The review body further recommended that a person who leaves office to take up a position to which he/she is appointed by or on the nomination of the Government — for example, a Minister becoming an EC Commissioner — should not benefit under the severance payments scheme.
Finally, the review body recognised that, while the changes recommended in relation to pension entitlements — in particular the minimum age limit for the commencement of pension and the 50 per cent abatement while the recipient remains a parliamentarian — are logical and reasonable in the context of the overall new package, it would be wrong to impose these changes unilaterally on those current and former office holders who have secured pension entitlements by virtue of service already given under the existing arrangements. They, therefore, recommended that (a) a specific future date — referred to in the report as "the operative date"— would be fixed for the commencement of the new pension regime and the new severance payments scheme for office holders; (b) any person who has less than three years' qualifying service on the operative date would be automatically subject to the new pension regime in full; (c) office holders or former office holders — who have three more years' qualifying service on the operative date would have a choice — they could either opt for the new pension regime in full or have a "split entitlement" arrangement, with service up to the operative date being dealt with under the old system, and all later service being subject to the new regime; and (d) the new severance payments scheme would not apply to any person to whom the new pension regime did not apply in full.
The review body had suggested that the operative date for the pension changes recommended in report No. 31 should be the day on which a new Government was formed after the first general election following publication of that report. However, that recommendation has been overtaken by events and the Bill provides that the operative date will be the day on which a Government are formed after the next general election. The provisions of the Bill are otherwise in line with the various recommendations in report No. 31, subject to some minor variations of a technical nature aimed at ensuring that the new system will operate as fairly and equitably as possible.
I should also mention that the Bill — in line with the review body report — will extend spouses' and children's pension entitlements, formerly applicable to male office holders only, to benefit the spouses and children of female office holders. I am sure the House will agree that this amendment, which has already been applied to the TDs' and Senators' pension scheme, is long overdue, but happily the need for this change has not yet arisen.
Finally, the Bill contains five other provisions which are not directly related to review body recommendations. The first two are enabling provisions, which will facilitate certain changes which I propose to incorporate in the Acts governing Members' free travel and telephone facilities. The third and fifth will rectify minor defects in the existing statutory provisions governing ministerial salaries and pensions, which came to light while this Bill was being prepared. The fourth provision will amend the Act governing the pay and pensions of members of the European Parliament, to enable the pension scheme for those members to be brought into line with the corresponding scheme for Members of this House and the Seanad. I can explain these provisions as necessary on Committee Stage.
In conclusion, this Bill will give effect to the considered and objective recommendations of an entirely independent review body on the remuneration structure of TDs and Senators, and the pension and severance entitlements of office holders. I hope that its passage will put an end to the misconceived, inaccurate and unjustified criticism of parliamentarians' conditions of employment which has been voiced in the mass media and elsewhere over the years. Those provisions are still of major concern to Members of this House because we cannot — and it would be wrong — unilaterally change any of the conditions because we are linked in a very fundamental way to those covered by the Gleeson review body. In my capacity as Minister for Finance, I will ensure that these matters are dealt with as expeditiously as possible and reported back to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
I commend the Bill to the House.
As my party's spokesman on Finance. I find myself in the invidious position of having to look at this Bill as I would look at any other legislation that comes before the House and ask what is fair, reasonable and in the public interest and is also fair and reasonable to the people it affects. I am in some ways critical of the content of the Bill and I shall try to put on record my reservations about it.
In so far as the Bill addresses the Gleeson recommendations it is worthy of support. Gleeson did a job of work but that job of work is not without fault. We should not be a judge in our own cause, but it is very difficult not to give legislation presented before the House critical examination without stating what I and several Members consider to the Bill's shortcomings.
Members of the Oireachtas are not among the poorest members of the community, nor are they among the wealthiest, but they are among the most vulnerable. There are those in society who are asked to live on very small amounts of money; they live in poverty and under very difficult circumstances. What Members have to try to do in relation to our own entitlements is to strike the balance between what is fair and reasonable for Members of Parliament as against, for instance, other public servants.
I have for some time been critical of the finding of the Gleeson report. I find it difficult to say this in the absence of Mr. Gleeson, but it is fair and reasonable to say that I find it difficult to understand why a district justice, for example, should be recommended a salary of £36,000 in the same report that recommends a salary of £26,000 for TDs. A district justice is on the lowest rung of the judicial ladder. A district justice is entitled to be fairly well paid and I am not criticising that in any way but I find it very difficult to understand how the Gleeson Commission came up with their findings. In the report to which the Minister referred the commission made one finding for members of the Judiciary and an entirely different finding for Members of the Oireachtas. Lest somebody will say that members of the Judiciary do not enjoy favourable tax-free allowances, it should be pointed out that they do receive favourable tax-free allowances, and that continues for members of the Judiciary and many other taxpayers.
If one considers length of service and insecurity of employment and compare the role of a legislator to that of a member of the Judiciary one will decide that parliamentarians have done very badly under the Gleeson recommendations. I am not criticising any member ot the Judiciary or the Judiciary; I am criticising the findings of the report in relation to the Judiciary as against the Legislature. For example, a judge has permanent, secure employment and comparatively short hours. Judges are paid much less than those who practise at the Bar but one of those who practised at the Bar decided that TDs are not worth the same rate as the person on the lowest rung of the Judiciary. I find that position very difficult to accept.
I am chairman of the senior Committee of this House and am aware that the chairman is paid half the amount paid to every witness who appears before that Committee. Every witness who appears before the Committee is in permanent, secure employment in the public service. I ask anybody reporting these proceedings whether any fair, independent person examining the position would say that TDs and Senators have done well out of the measure. In all fairness, I have to say that the permanent civil service and public servants have done much better than the elected public service and yet the elected public servants are those who are most vulnerable. I find that position unacceptable. I am not speaking for Members alone but also for their spouses and their families. Families of some Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas have been left in difficult circumstances and are in a difficult position. As a person who made a living out of preparing accounts and giving tax advice — indeed I lectured on taxation in Rathmines — I have to say that TDs are not the only people to receive part of their salary tax free. The figure, a half of their salary, was negotiated properly and above board with the chairman and members of the Revenue Commissioners. That amount was set and was frozen. It should at present stand at about £13,500 but it is frozen at the figure of about £6,000 mentioned in the Minister's speech.
That was in 1981.
However, the allowance being calculated as the entitlement to replace that figure is not based on half of our salaries but on the frozen figure introduced at that time. I ask any fair and rasonable person, any trade unionist; any member of the National Union of Journalists; any member of the trade union representing higher civil servants; to ask themselves whether that is reasonable and fair.
The Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Bill, 1991, certainly makes amendments for Ministers and office holders but it does not do much for Members of the House. The legislation is prepared by civil servants — civil servants who would not write up their own terms of reference in this way — is brought before Cabinet, decided on by Cabinet, introduced in the House and, without any major amendment, is passed by the House. That is not the fairest way to deal with such legislation. If those of us who have been elected to the House five times lost our seat in the morning we would receive a puny income and would lose everything. I ask those who have drafted the Bill to bear that in mind.
Some people expect us to apologise for drawing a salary. Many of those who criticise the benefits received by Members — some of them are Members of the House — would in another life negotiating for people outside the House not stand for the conditions that are being applied to ordinary Members of the House as distinct from the allowances provided for Ministers and parliamentary office holders.
The question of responsibility pay is not addressed. Unless one is the Ceann Comhairle, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the Cathaoirleach or the Leas-Chathaoirleach, there is no provision for anyone with a particular responsibility. There is no provision for service pay. Members who have served for 25 years in the House receive the same salary under the Bill as a Member who has served one or two years. There is no allowance for length of service. Some Members of the House do not seek ministerial Office — they want to be career parliamentarians. I have to admit that I am not one of them. In the case of Members who wish to serve as parliamentarians, to spend their time in the House contributing from the back-benches there is no provision for service pay. That is unfair.
They must have been asleep when they were drawing up the legislation, tunnel vision.
Members of the House might reflect on this. Honestly, instead of having to discuss our affairs publicly in this way, in a forum in which we are all a little too windy to compare ourselves in a fair way to any official in the public service, it should be possible to have a fair and independent outside association to represent the interests of TDs and negotiate with Government. For instance, could the Association of Higher Civil Servants not become the Higher Association of Public Servants and include a section for TDs so that we would not have to negotiate our own entitlements? If that were to happen we would very quickly find that the anomalies and insecurities faced by Members of the House would be addressed. In this forum we possibly cannot do what we should be doing because of the fear of setting a trend for other areas.
Some Members will for their own political gain denigrate any possible advantage or anything that would seem to be to the benefit of Members of the House. The reality is that it is becoming ever more difficult to attract people into politics because of the lifestyle, the hours of work, the instability, the pressures and, I have to say, the pay and conditions. I would ask the Minister to consider inserting a condition in this Bill that anybody who criticises its provisions do not have to accept its benefits, that its benefits should apply only to Members who apply for them. The Minister should insert that condition and ascertain whether there are any Members who do not apply for its benefits. That is my recommendation to the Minister, and would be in the case of any other Bill of this nature that would be introduced in the House.
We operate this Parliament on a shoestring. We need only examine how the Estimate for this House is made up, for example the hiring of outside consultants to advise parliamentary committees in respect of which I think the figure last year was £75,000. Of course the Department of Finance voted themselves £800,000 — which we rubber-stamped — to get outside people to advise them. Constantly within every area of expenditure Parliament is being run on a shoestring. As I have said on numerous occasions, this is the worst resourced head office in town. Only when Members of this House decide that, as Members of Parliament, they will insist on the proper facilities with which to undertake their task, including proper telephone and fax facilities here and, if necessary, in our constituencies, with the proper back-up facilities, will we be able to undertake that task properly. In addition, we should have offices where we can meet people instead of having to take them to the bar or restaurant, which is a constant cost to Members. Until we are prepared to do so, ensuring that Parliament is properly resourced, nobody will take us seriously and the remainder of the public service will run riot without the proper supervision of Parliament. I do not believe that is right or acceptable.
In tandem with the changes that need to be implemented here in relation to payments to Members of Parliament, remuneration packages for Members of Parliament, office holders, we need to examine the whole question of Dáil reform which is long overdue. We should assert our right to participate in the legislative process. For instance, this Bill should be considered by a special committee of the House. It should have been drafted by people assisting Members of the House. Members should have before them examples of how other parliaments operate. We should have all of the alternatives available to us so that we can reach a reasonable, balanced decision, and that by a committee of the House. We should insist on parliamentary reform. How long will we allow this charade continue in this Parliament and the way it operates? All of those things need to be addressed. I will throw in, at the same time, the whole question of funding of parties and constituency operationsvis-à-vis elections of TDs.
I intend to table certain amendments on Committee Stage. First I suggest that the question of telephone calls from TDs constituencies should be comprised of telephone and telefax facilities, not just calls. In this day and age there should be available to us in our constituencies fax machines. One might well ask also why the telephone rental is not included in the provisions of this Bill? Is there something wrong with that; is the apparatus different from the actual service itself? I do think that rental charge should be included.
Similarly, there should be provision made for proper severance pay. I note that the Minister has said he has sent that aspect back for consideration to the Gleeson Commission. I contend that severance pay should be payable, as it would to others in the private sector. I would ask the House to consider an amendment allowing for persons with service in other parliaments, who do not at present benefit from that service, have that reckonable for service here. I am thinking of Members who might have served in Northern Ireland and who might not at present derive any benefit from such service. That is something we might consider, particularly since that service will have been given for the peaceable continuity of life in both parts of this island.
Fine Gael will support this Bill. I will be introducing one or two technical amendments along the way. The Minister is right to address some of the other problems which arise. Many Members who enter this House make great sacrifices in so doing. While we are not complaining about those sacrifices we have made it would be wrong of me, as the father of four children, the only breadwinner in my household, not to say I am concerned or worried about the provisions for my spouse and children in the event of my untimely death. I know there are some people who would like to bring that event about sooner than is likely to happen but, in such event I would like to believe there would be proper provision for my wife and children, just as I would believe there should be in the case of any servant I would engage myself, or there would be for any servant the State would engage, proper provision having being made to protect their dependants so that they would not be vulnerable and thrown to the wolves just because their spouse happened to spend his or her life contributing to the State by way of seeking to serve in Parliament. I do not believe there is any greater service one can render beyond that in perhaps certain vocations, religious or medical where people can directly serve their fellow man — either in the elected public service or in the mainstream, permanent public service.
Many of the issues needing to be addressed have not been addressed in this Bill, but, so far as the provisions go and meet the recommendations of the Gleeson Commission, albeit with the shortcomings I have pointed out, I will be supporting its passage.
I might begin by commenting briefly on Deputy Gay Mitchell's contribution and I find myself in agreement with a lot of what he said. It is time we had a discussion like this on the Floor of the House. Events in recent months have thrown up a clear lack in the way we manage the affairs of this country. Clearly this House has very little power in the management of the laws we enact, the following-up of issues that are important in debate here. Clearly we do not have teeth in many of the committees that are supposed to be the most important committees of State.
I would hope that the issue of resourcing the Oireachtas would be put, not on the back burner, but on the front of a Government agenda, if there has been any outcome from all the recent spate of scandals it would be that we need an Oireachtas capable of management, calling people to account and, most of all, minding the resources of this State and advancing the interests of ordinary citizens. Clearly that is something we do not do well at present. I am in agreement with many of Deputy Gay Mitchell's comments in that regard.
We can start by valuing ourselves as Members of the Oireachtas because, God knows, there are many outside this House whose esteem for Members of this House is very low. Unfortunately we ourselves contribute in no small way to the lack of esteem the profession of politician now enjoys in this country.
We do need to have basic facilities. It is an irony that anybody in this House who is a front bench spokesperson, often receives deputations from interest or lobby groups resourced to the hilt, who have the most up-to-date research to contribute to legislation passing through this House, whereas we Members have no such back-up or support. Any examination of the basic offices and equipment we share, equipment from telephones to fax machines, clearly demonstrates that we do not resource our democracy. It is because of that lack of resources that our democratic institutions have failed patently in recent months to properly manage the affairs of our country.
It would be my hope that at least this debate would begin the process of addressing some of the many anomalous issues of equity, the first of which has long been a bone of contention outside. Many of the issues addressed in this Bill are contentious for the public through lack of understanding of the real position. For example, Deputy Gay Mitchell mentioned that it is a common belief that half of TDs' salaries are tax-free, the same belief that says that we all have free drink and food in Leinster House bars and restaurants. That is common belief because we do not tell the truth about it, that no such facilities exist in this House, that the price of food or drink in this House is as dear as in any other downtown enterprise in central Dublin.
Not as bad.
The initial allowance of half our salary tax-free that existed many years ago was negotiated with the Revenue Commissioners as a fair allowance for constituency expenses which were not recouped by the State. By arbitrary decision of the Minister for Finance some years ago that allowance was fixed at a point in time. Every increase since then negotiated through national agreements further eroded the value of that tax-free allowance. An arbitrary stop was put on by a Minister for Finance. Unfortunately the Gleeson Committee fixed the allowance as at that time and simply transferred it from an allowance to a cash sum, without regard to what the expense was supposed to cover.
I welcome the notion of asking the Gleeson Committee to work out what the tax allowance was initially meant to do. It was to cover genuine expenses which are not recoupable. My constituency is large, although by no means the largest. It is 40 miles in length and about 20 miles wide. Serving the constituents who sent me to this House involves a fair amount of travelling within the constituency. As a front bench spokesman for my party I also have responsibilities which take me around the country. No expenses are recoupable for that. Gleeson should have regard for these figures before plucking a firm amount from the air and legislating for it.
There is a great misconception among the general public who believe that we have allowances which are not available to ordinary PAYE workers. For that reason I strongly welcome the proposed changes which will treat Members of the Oireachtas like every other citizen. It is right that all our salary should be treated in the same way as the salary of other citizens. If nothing else, it might bring a degree of urgency to the reform of the PAYE tax burden. If it sharpened the focus on that, it would be a welcome development. Restoring confidence in this House must involve blowing away the myths in the minds of some people about the privileges which Members enjoy. I welcome the change from a tax-free allowance to a directly calculated sum for genuine expenses. I hope there will be some degree of calculation by the Review Body on Higher Remuneration as to the real expenses which are an essential part of the work of Deputies and Senators.
The second issue addressed in the Bill is severance payments. I am glad we are talking about severance payments rather than termination allowances. There is a certain permanence about the latter term which strikes me as chilling. Many of us are regularly subject to termination. There is no other occupation where, despite very hard work, a person can be dismissed at the whim of the people every four years or every six months, if circumstances so dictate. Members have been coming in and out of this House like yoyos in the past decade. That is unique. There is no other job where a person may not expect to be kept on if he does his work well. On cessation of employment a person is protected by redundancy provisions and other mechanisms. We must have regard for the unique circumstances of Members of this House. I welcome the notion of a severance payment to cushion to some degree the trauma of losing one's seat. For those with families who are totally dependent on an income from this House it is doubly traumatic. There is a public trauma of losing one's seat and the private trauma of waking up the next day without an income. It is quite horrendous and would make the occupation unacceptable to many people from whose services the State could benefit. It is time we addressed that issue. The turnover in membership of this House has been quite spectacular during the past 20 years. The certainty of coming into this House for 15, 20 or 30 years which was a feature of political life up to the sixties is not a feature of public life now. I am not sure that many of us would have the stamina for that length of service. Certainly the public do not seem to have an appetite for tolerating people spending that length of time in this House. We must adjust to that reality.
The contentious issue of ministerial pensions has aroused public indignation. It is a bone of contention that anybody could qualify for a pension in three years. It is also unacceptable to the public that somebody could be paid a pension following three years' service as a Minister while continuing to be a Member of this House, without holding office. This payment was not intended to be a pension in any traditional way. It was to be a monetary compensation for people who took up public office and thereby severed their connection with any other occupation or income they may have enjoyed therefrom. When they ceased to have the benefit of a ministerial allowance, they were intended to have some allowance which would cushion their drop in salary to that of a mere backbencher. That was not accepted by the general public. The term "pension" was wrong and the notion of paying people on the double because they had held office for a number of years was unacceptable. I welcome the change whereby allowances would only be paid at the age of 55. That brings us into line with the trend in changing retirement ages. There is quite a generous cushioning for Ministers losing office, but the same generosity is not forthcoming for mere Members in respect of severance payments. I hope the Minister's referral of this matter to the Review Body on Higher Remuneration will bring about some changes in this regard.
I welcome the extension of spouses and children's pension entitlement. This recognises the reality that many officeholders will be female and clearly all officeholders should be treated in like fashion. That amendment is to be welcomed.
There is a change in telephone regulations. The general public would not be aware how Dickensian are the regulations governing the use of telephones in this House. It is unbelievable. Some of us have looked at the regulations and taken on the officials in the Department of Finance, who are not proscribed in the same way as we are under existing regulations. I welcome the modification as a first step in providing resources to politicians. I resent the notion that as a Member and as Labour Party spokesman for the environment I cannot ring Brussels if I want information on EC Directives which impact on my area of responsibility. I resent that any civil servant or Minister should seek to circumscribe my right to make contact with my constituents. The use of the telephone has changed beyond all recognition since the initial regulations were drawn up. As I said, most plumbers, carpenters, etc. now have mobile phones. Yet we are still in the position where, in accordance with the regulations which govern the phones in this House, we can make three minute phone calls to our constituents. I hope very considerable improvements will be made in relation to this issue and that recognition will be given to the fact that many Deputies run constituency offices.
A very interesting comparison was drawn by the consultants to a sub-committee of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in regard to two aspects of the treatment of parliamentarians in this and other countries. The first related to salaries and allowances and the second — which is more interesting from my perspective at least — related to the facilities available to parliamentarians. We came out very badly in this comparison. It is time we gave democratic institutions the teeth they need to function efficiently. I hope that the Minister will take the first step in that direction in this Bill so that we can work efficiently, legislate effectively and serve the needs of all the people. We have not been great in our own defence in recent times and the institutions of this House have suffered, the committees of this House have suffered and the democratic accountability of the servants of this House has suffered. I hope we can begin the process of having a more vibrant, accountable and transparent democracy on foot of the proposed changes in this legislation.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with its proposals, this is an important Bill. Therefore, it is very surprising that the Government, with the consent of Fine Gael and the Labour Party, have decided to rush the Bill through the Dáil, allowing just five and a quarter hours for the debate on all five Stages. This is inadequate and will mean, for instance, that many of the nine amendments we have tabled for Committee Stage will not be debated by the House. This Bill will affect the vital interests of Members of the Oireachtas and especially office holders — Government Ministers, the Attorney General, the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. There is, therefore, a particular obligation on the House to ensure that the Bill and all its implications are fully discussed and considered and that the public are aware of what is involved. That will not be the case because of the way in which this debate is being guillotined.
This Bill is based on reports Nos. 30 and 31 of the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector which were published in June 1988. Nothing was done with the reports for three and half years yet six days after a Bill was produced the Dáil was asked to take all Stages in one day in the final week before the Christmas recess. Is it any wonder that the public are cynical and disillusioned about the manner in which we conduct our affairs in this House?
There is a particular need for sensitivity by the Dáil at present given the decision of the Government to unilaterally breach theProgramme for Economic and Social Progress by pleading inability to pay special pay awards already agreed on and the decision to restrict the payment of the general pay increase of 3 per cent due in January. Against this background it is particularly surprising that the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill offers no information as to the cost implications of the legislation. The inclusion of a statement of the financial implications in the explanatory memorandum is now virtually standard procedure in all Bills circulated by the Government. The explanatory memorandum for the Electoral (No. 2) Bill, circulated today, contains such a statement and its omission from the explanatory memorandum on this Bill is particularly odd.
There is nothing to suggest that the Bill will save the Exchequer any money in the immediate future. Indeed, it may well cost the taxpayers additional money. This House and the public are entitled to this information and I call on the Minister or the Minister of State in replying to the debate to clearly set out the exact position in this regard. The Minister for Finance in his speech did not in any way address what I believe to be an essential and important aspect of the legislation which should be considered by the House when debating its merits, that is, does the Bill represent on balance a saving to the taxpayer or will it prove to be an expensive piece of legislation for the House? I fully accept in relation to pension entitlements that it is often very difficult to work out the precise costs but there must surely be some estimate available to the Department which should be made available to us. Are we being asked to pass a Bill in respect of which there is no estimate of cost implications?
The Workers' Party were the first party in this House to raise the issue of the payment of ministerial pensions to sitting Members of the Oireachtas. For ten years we have pressed for reform of the system of ministerial pensions and, in particular, for the ending of the procedures whereby Ministers qualified for substantial pensions after just three years in office and continued to draw them while also in receipt of salaries as Members of the Oireachtas. Despite the perception created by the media that it was the Progressive Democrats who first raised the matter, I have on file a series of press statements and parliamentary questions on these matters from the Workers' Party going back to 1982 and 1983. It was a series of questions from The Workers' Party which first drew attention to the level of ministerial pensions paid to sitting Members of the Oireachtas. The Private Members' Bill on the issue introduced by the Progressive Democrats in 1987 certainly helped to advance the debate on the matter. However, the Bill falls far short of what Deputy O'Malley and his colleagues sought to do in that measure.
It would be wrong not to acknowledge that the Bill before us represents a step forward. The regularisation of the position of TDs regarding income tax payments is welcome. There is no reason TDs should not be treated for income tax purposes on the same basis as other workers. The principle of a severance payment for TDs who lose their seats is also a good one, although the deal proposed for them is far inferior to the arrangements being made for Ministers who lose office. The introduction of a contribution towards the cost of telephone calls made by TDs from outside of Leinster House is also welcome. This addresses a long-standing anomaly whereby rural Deputies, unlike their Dublin colleagues are not in a position to use their Leinster House offices on non-sitting days or during the recess and incur huge telephone bills.
However, the Bill falls far short of what is required in a number of important areas. The matter which has caused most anger among the public has been the practice of paying ministerial pensions to sitting Members of the Oireachtas. As at April of this year some 33 former office holders, who are now sitting Members of the Oireachtas or of the European Parliament or members of the Judiciary, drew between them pensions with a total annual cost to taxpayers of almost £250,000. In one case a former Minister who is still a Member of this House has been drawing a pension, which now amounts to £14,000, for over 21 years. These payments will remain unchanged after this legislation is passed. In addition, any member of the present Government who loses ministerial office following the next general election, is removed from office or resigns in the meantime will also benefit from the existing generous pension regime. Nothing will be altered for them under this legislation.
The Workers' Party believe that the public want to see an end to the payment of ministerial pensions to sitting Members of the Oireachtas and we have tabled an amendment which proposes that pensions paid to current Members should now cease until they reach the age of 55. The pension would then recommence, with the application of the abatement provisions in this Bill. I know that the Gleeson report rejected this idea and I have no doubt that the Minister will argue that people are used to receiving this money, that they have made commitments on the basis that they will continue to receive it and that it would be wrong, therefore, to end the payments. The Gleeson report will by and large be the reference by which we will address issues in regard to pay, pensions and conditions in this House in the future. However, like all other reports commissioned by the Government from independent bodies we will not be fully bound by it. When one considers the disregard shown by the Government to the reports which emanate from the Law Reform Commission on a regular basis it must be difficult for any Minister to come in here and argue, as the Minister for Finance has done this evening, that we should implement the proposals in the Bill because the Gleeson report recommends it.
However, in relation to honouring commitments simply because they are there, neither legal nor moral arguments were obstacles to the Government when, in the mid-eighties, they introduced the EC Directive on Social Welfare Equalisation in such a manner as to substantially cut the entitlements of certain social welfare recipients. These issues were not any problem when the Government introduced the Social Welfare Bill, 1991, which substantially cut the incomes of unmarried couples who were cohabiting.
The Estimates, being published today will provide for cutbacks in Government expenditure of perhaps £400 million. People will lose services and facilities. Why then should the position of former Ministers be sacrosanct? Why should the Government have any hesitation in accepting an amendment on Committee Stage tabled by The Workers' Party to cease the payment of all pensions to Members who are currently entitled to them until such time as they cease to be Members or attain the age of 55 years?
It is only when Ministers who are members of the Government elected after the next general election go out of office that the reforms will come into place. There is a perception that the legislation in regard to ministerial pensions will become operable as soon as the Bill is enacted. However, when one looks more closely at the Bill one will see that the provisions with regard to ministerial pensions could come into operation as far ahead as 1998 or 1999, depending on progress.
In addition, former Ministers who then qualified will still enjoy a pension regime far more generous than anything found in the public service or the private sector. While the payment of pensions will be deferred to the age of 55 and will then be stopped if the person concerned is a Member of the Oireachtas or of the European Parliament, the fact remains that a former Minister will still qualify for a pension of 25 per cent of salary after just three years' service, a scheme which does not exist in the public or private sectors. In addition, the maximum rate of ministerial pension is being increased from 45 per cent to 60 per cent of salary; most other workers have to put in a lifetime in a job to qualify for a 60 per cent pension. Former Ministers will now get a 60 per cent pension after just ten years' service.
In addition, certain new perks are being introduced for Ministers and Ministers of State. The introduction of a new special tax allowance for office holders who maintain two places of residence must be resisted. Many people outside Dublin — especially civil servants — have to come to the capital to find work and have to maintain a residence here but they do not get any such generous tax allowance, nor is it suggested that they should. In any Government Department one will find hundreds, if not thousands, of civil servants who consider that their homes are in the country, who travel to and from the city every week and who must maintain a flat or other residence in Dublin for work reasons only. Why should they not have a nice arrangement like the one being written into the legislation for Ministers and other office holders?
The principle of a severance payment for TDs who lose their seats is a good one and we have no problem with the principle of a similar arrangement for Ministers who lose office. However, what a difference is proposed between the arrangements for TDs and Ministers; a TD will receive a severance payment of just three months' salary provided in the meantime that he or she is not re-elected. A Minister, on the other hand, will receive 75 per cent of salary for the first six months, 50 per cent for the next 12 months and 25 per cent for the next six months. The ministerial severance payment will be the equivalent of 12 months' salary spread over two years.
The arrangement for TDs will be the same, irrespective of whether they have served two or 22 years in the Dáil, which seems very unfair, especially as there is no incremental salary for TDs. It is regrettable that the Gleeson Commission rejected in such a peremptory fashion the argument for an incremental salary for TDs. Virtually all public servants are on incremental salary scales; a public servant who serves this House knows that in ten years he or she will be earning substantially more. A TD will be on the same basic salary ten years on or for however long he or she remains in the House. However, in regard to the severance payments, it should be asked why TDs and Ministers should be treated so differently from other workers. Surely the best arrangement would be for TDs and Ministers who lose their positions to be treated in exactly the same way as other workers who lose their jobs and qualify for redundancy payments under the appropriate legislation. We will be addressing this matter by way of amendment and I hope time will be available to debate the merits of such a proposal on Committee Stage.
While this Bill is being debated the Estimates for 1992 are being published and we are told they will provide for cutbacks in Government expenditure of around £400 million. There will be cutbacks in a wide range of public services; people will suffer. Against this background the continuation of such a privileged regime for former Government Ministers is simply not justified. People are fed up hearing Government Ministers lecturing the public about belt-tightening while not being prepared to tighten their own belts.
We have always believed that TDs should be paid adequately for the job they perform. Ministers are also TDs and it is appropriate that they should receive an enhanced salary reflecting the responsibility of their office. The principle of the introduction of a salary for Members of Parliament was essential for the evolution of fully representative democracy. Decent salaries are necessary to ensure that membership of the Dáil does not become the sole preserve of businessmen, the self-employed, farmers, auctioneers and so on, many of whom can participate in the Dáil without being dependent on Dáil salaries.
In the same way we accept that many Ministers carry a huge workload and additional responsibilities, it is reasonable that they should be paid a sum over and above their basic TD's salary. It is also reasonable that provision should be made for an adequate pension for later life. On the other hand, it should be pointed out and noted that there are many perks and privileges attached to the office of Minister. The salary is generous by any standards, about four times the average male industrial wage. A State car and driver are provided for Ministers and an allowance to cover this is allocated to Ministers of State. In some cases up to six civil servants are provided at taxpayers expense to look after the Minister's constituents. Many, although not all, have outside professional or business interests to which they can revert when leaving office. Therefore, we should not make too much of the poor mouth about the plight of "impoverished" Ministers; nor should we forget that, despite the difficulties of the job, there is no shortage of candidates for either the Dáil or ministerial office.
In regard to the pensions controversy, there is indeed an argument for abolishing the separate scheme of ministerial pensions and replacing it by an integrated income-related pension scheme for all Oireachtas Members. This would be paid to all Deputies at the same age and under the same conditions. However, because of their substantially higher earnings while holding office, former Ministers would draw a substantially higher pension but, for all other purposes and on all other bases, the scheme would be equally applicable to all Members of the Oireachtas, regardless of whether they were office holders.
This Bill represents some progress but it is a missed opportunity to end what most people consider a scandal in regard to payment of ministerial pensions to sitting Members of the Oireachtas. We have not been provided with full information about its cost implications and the manner in which it is being rushed through the Dáil is shameful. The Workers' Party will not oppose Second Stage but we will be tabling nine amendments on Committee Stage. How we vote on the Final Stages will be determined by the way in which the Minister responds to our amendments.
I am glad I have been in the House for most of Deputy McCartan's contribution because the next time I am looking for a solicitor I will certainly contact the firm of solicitors of which he was once a partner because I know their fees will be reasonable and will be very cheap.
The service will be very good, too.
I am quite sure the service will be very good but I doubt whether the fees will be cheap. When I read of lawyers and other people in the legal profession commanding so much in fees per day and I look around Leinster House and see the miserable allowances and the conditions which Deputies in this House have to put up with, I ask myself a few serious questions. It is not easy for a Deputy to come into the House and speak about salaries and allowances of Oireachtas Members. I am sure many Deputies on all sides of the House would prefer if this matter was not brought into the public arena. What we have heard in the past few minutes is what I would generally classify as pub talk, because that is what it was. A great way to get a debate going in the pub, when the lads are standing up beside the bar is when somebody says: "Deputy so-and-so has a great lifestyle, he has a fortune, he has a salary, is paid expenses and so on," when the Deputy is probably trying to keep the bank manager from tearing down the door of the house. That is the kind of talk that takes place regarding both ministerial allowances and pensions and TD's salaries and pensions and it is encouraged by certain parties in this House and, worse still, it is encouraged by members of the media. Members of the media are so busy today that not one of them can sit in the gallery to listen to this debate. I am quite certain — as has happened every year since I became a Member of this House — between the time the Dáil goes into recess and before we resume there will be an article about the salaries of Dáil Deputies, their expenses, the number of days the Dáil sits per annum and so on. We have an article on those lines year in year out and I am sure it will be no different on this occasion. That type of article comes from people in the media who work about nine days per fortnight and enjoy considerably better salaries, expenses and overnight allowances than any Deputy in this House could every hope to have, irrespective of whether it is recommended in a Gleeson or a Devlin report.
This Bill is supposed to be about ministerial pensions and since I have never been in that privileged position, it should not really concern me but there are sections in the Bill which impinge upon the terms and conditions of ordinary TDs and it is those matters I hope to address. The standing in which we are held by the community and the public at large is caused by ourselves; the salaries and allowances which we pay ourselves are not solely responsible, there are many other issues also. The story I am about to relate has been attributed to the late John Kelly. He remembers a TD coming to him who said: "I have a terrible life down in the country, I cannot get out on a Sunday or go to a football match or anything else as people come at all hours of the day". He said he had been trying to get out last Sunday and a constituent came along and he had to deal with his problem over lunch. He said he had a terrible dose of the flu and the TD asked him whether he would think of going to the doctor. The man said he could not disturb the doctor on a Sunday. Yet, he had no difficulty in disturbing the TD.
When we come to talk about our own terms and conditions the lot of a TD is totally different from that which exists in any other democracy that I know of. There is no specific provision in the Constitution to say we should be doing the work which most of us spend our time doing. Every time there has been a Gleeson report — or, prior to that, Devlin commissions — the problem encountered is that the expenses which TDs incur in the job they do is not specifically provided for in the Constitution. The name Teachta Dála as mentioned in the Constitution could be known as messenger of the people. I do not think it was ever envisaged that the messenger of the people would be so laid down with messages that when he gets to Dáil Éireann he can hardly find his way to the Chamber. That is the position as it exists in Irish politics and we have to recognise it and pay ourselves accordingly.
I congratulate the new Minister for Finance, Deputy Bertie Ahern, on his accession to that office. This is the first Bill he has introduced to this House as Minister for Finance. The former Minister and the Cabinet who drew up this Bill have done a great job for ex-office holders. As a pal of mine in the country said, if a man is not able to look after his own business I do not want him to look after mine either. So far as the changes in this Bill affect ex-Ministers, and people who will be ex-Ministers, they have done a very good job for themselves. I should like to ensure that Deputies whose terms, conditions and pensions may not be as good, that they would have somethingpari passu with the changes being made here for office holders.
The Bill provides for generous severance allowances for ex-Ministers. It cannot be compared with what Deputies and Senators will receive when they leave this House. I note from the Minister's speech that the change to section 5 — which deals with severance payments — will be done by order. In his contribution he said that the Government have decided that there cannot be any improvement to what is set out in the Bill at present. We may be a long time waiting in this House before another Minister will have the courage to come back with another Bill or to make some amendments to existing legislation.
The two most progressive Ministers regarding TDs pay and conditions were the Taoiseach and the former Minister for the Public Service, John Boland. Although John Boland is no longer a Member of the House he is remembered by TDs on all sides for the changes he made to the pension regulations. I am sure every civil servant in the Department of the Public Service at the time told him he could not do this, that or the other but he did it. He improved certain aspects of pensions and I congratulate him on doing that.
I would remind all TDs that since I became a Member of this House various Governments — Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour — have postponed increases to Oireachtas Members and we were pilloried by the people when we postponed them and we were pilloried by the people when we succeeded in getting them eventually but we got no thanks. One will not get thanks from any person in Irish life by downgrading oneself. Oireachtas Members should be paid properly and should have facilities which are equivalent to those provided in the private and public sectors. It was only in the past year that we got decent equipment, such as computers and FAX machines. It is not too long ago since there was one secretary for seven Oireachtas Members in Leinster House, some time ago there was one secretary to four Oireachtas Members and now each Deputy has a secretary.
In regard to the telephone allowance which is mentioned in the Bill, that matter was discussed ten years ago when I was on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I am delighted the Minister has brought in a section which enables some form of telephone allowance to be paid to Oireachtas Members.
Deputy McCartan took issue with the income tax regulations as pertains to the dual-abode allowance as if this was a new allowance for Ministers. The dual abode allowance for serving Cabinet Ministers has been part of the income tax regulations for some considerable time. It is not a new allowance, so there will be no extra cost.
I welcome the changes in the Bill. Severance allowances proposed for TDs will now be implemented by order of the Minister, but I doubt that we will ever see one in the lifetime of this Dáil. Deputies should be prepared to stand up for their rights, to say that we should be paid properly and should have proper conditions and allowances. They should not apologise to the public for asking for them.
I do not necessarily welcome the Bill. It should not be rushed through the House in one day. Too much legislation is being rushed through the House. When the Progressive Democrats, now partners in Government, instigated this proposal nothing happened. We are now coming to a crucial time for electoral fortunes and the gun has been put to the heads of the major party in Government. If this is not passed before Christmas the junior partner may pull the plug. There is not any good reason why this could not have been taken in the first week in February. It has been around long enough.
Initially the major party in Government were not in favour of this kind of legislation, nor was I. Every other year there is a witch-hunt with an attack on some benefit public representatives have. The 50 per cent tax break for expenses which has been attacked was agreed with the Revenue Commissioners as a fair and reasonable allowance. It was cut down a number of years ago and was never upgraded to meet legitimate expenses. Gleeson considered the allowance on the basis of what was there, but he should have gone back further.
When we come under pressure from the public we seem to wilt. We are not prepared to stand up for what we believe to be right and effective. "Ministerial pensions" may have been the wrong words to use, but there are good reasons for the pensions. When a Minister loses his post and ends up on the Opposition benches he suffers a considerable salary reduction. Most of those who serve in ministries come back as Front Bench Opposition spokespersons without any resources. The basis of good democracy is the strength of the Opposition. Front Bench Members should be paid allowances as should chairmen of committees because of the volume of work involved. It is ridiculous to eliminate an allowance just because somebody else might not have it. For a Minister to end up on the Opposition Front Bench without any resources is not good for democracy or for the functioning of this House. We should not be penny-pinching. We cannot get good democracy and good government on the cheap. We should remember that.
To put the figures in perspective, one could go into the law courts, nod one's head and charge a fee of £1,000 with no problem. I was Government Chief Whip in a minority Government and Deputies can imagine what that was like. I was also a junior Minister in the Department of the Environment. For those additional jobs, I got into my hand £100 per week despite all the talk we hear of the great salaries. I am now in receipt of a ministerial pension. That is reported in the papers about three or four times a year, so there is not any secret about it. What I get into my hand by way of ministerial pension is £50 a week.
Some people try to ferret out something else that they can try to take from us. Perhaps The Workers' Party will think of something because we are now going to get what will be an inadequate allowance. In three years time people will say that we should not have the telephone allowance and we will all get weak at the knees.
I am disappointed with the Minister. What annoys me about the House recently is that when we have any problem we set up a commission. To set the electoral boundaries we had to have a commission because we were not fit to do it. We could not be trusted with planning and we set up a board which we reconstituted a number of times but there are now smells coming from it. That never happened when Ministers were in charge, because they were accountable to this House. That is what democracy is about. Such matters should not be passed on to commissions. I remind the Minister that under the Acts he could have dealt with pensions; he has that discretion. As Deputy McCreevy said, former Deputy John Boland when Minister dealt with many matters for Deputies. He made many fair and reasonable changes without introducing legislation in the House. He did not pass problems over to a commission so that they could take the blame. It is our job to make decisions, not to hide behind the coat-tails of any commission. We should not be afraid but, unfortunately, we are.
A person joins a pension scheme knowing that the scheme is constructed in such a way that he will in all probability realise the pension. In relation to the figure of 27 years, as Deputy Howlin said, this probably would have been all right in the thirties, forties and fifties but it is certainly not all right today. We should examine the record and note the changes in personnel following elections, during the past ten years in particular, and the fall-out. The businesses of a number of people have gone to the wall but nobody talks about this. They talk instead about the other side and do not face up to the hard reality. When someone walks out the gate after losing their seat — this happened to me but only for a short period of time — no one wants to know them; they are as dead as mutton. It is time that we looked seriously at this matter because the scheme is in need of review.
Let me give the House some facts and figures in relation to my own party. If one needs 27 years service to qualify for a pension one would have had to begun service in 1965. Of the Fine Gael Members elected in 1965 none remains; only one remains of those elected in 1961; five remain of those elected in 1969 and only one remains of those elected in 1973 when there was a large influx of new Fine Gael Deputies. If we talk about the need to have a pension scheme we must talk about a figure which Members can hope to arrive at at some stage.
I understand that this matter is to be referred to the Gleeson Commission. Now that the gentleman is to be engaged — and, I might add, not for £50 or £100 a week, and the best of luck to him, if those are his fees — I have no complaint to make but I would like this matter to be considered.
The Minister has indicated that he is giving himself the power to introduce regulations. This is all right provided that when the time comes he will have the bottle to introduce them. It is obvious the Minister and his colleagues in the Cabinet would not have decided to refer this matter to the Gleeson Commission unless they thought a reasonable case could be made — at least I hope they would not refer matters if a case could not be made — but I would like the Minister to give us a clear indication that any changes made on foot of the report of the Gleeson Commission will be put into operation once the Bill is passed. This is only fair and reasonable and I hope this will be accepted.
In relation to ministerial pensions, like the State cars, if they go, they go. As Deputy McCartan said, there will be no saving for the Exchequer immediately but there will be a saving. As in the case of redundancies, there will be no change immediately but there will be down the road because in the future pension payments will not be made to former Ministers until they attain a certain age, if that is seen to be fair, or unless they happen to suffer from ill health.
As I have indicated already, I am concerned that there is a lack of commitment to the House. The junior partner in Government always talk about the need for Dáil reform and I have no doubt that they are the people responsible for the decision that the Bill should go through the House in one day. We do not want that type of reform. The Leader of that party, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, guillotined the debate on the Companies Bill when that most important legislation passed through the House. Indeed he guillotined the debate on another Bill in the House last week. There is a need for serious Dáil reform.
What we need are back-up services. If we are to remove remuneration from those who have served on the other side of the House we must provide them with back-up services and the tools that they require to ensure a good and effective Opposition. Deputies should also have far better access to research facilities, which is the case in all other parliaments. We operate on a shoestring: we have an office and a secretary to trundle out constituency gunge which goes in and out on a weekly basis. I am not going to talk about our electoral system, with its multi-seat constituencies but that is the result it has produced. In my constituency recently four or five Deputies, along with two or three officials from the corporation, went to look at a railing which had fallen down. Was that not very enlightening? That is the result of having four- and five-seat constituencies. If neither I nor my colleague went out we would have been pilloried. If we are to talk about the need for change and the need to be effective in the House let us have a real debate but the one thing we cannot do is run parliament on a shoestring or on the cheap.
People are not attracted to membership of the House by the conditions offered and the insecurity attached. Deputy McCartan said that many people want to be Deputies. There would probably a queue outside the door but are they the people we want? We want people who are committed and dedicated and who are not in politics for the glory but to make changes which are necessary in society. By denigrating ourselves and seeking to run parliament on the cheap, we will not get the parliament that induces the enthusiasm needed.
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy, but his time is nearly up. I would be grateful if he would bring his speech to a close.
Let me say in conclusion that this is not the overall package I had hoped to see. The matter was referred to a commission who made certain recommendations, but I hope the Minister will not always run to the commission when he wants to make changes in the conditions of Members. We should never be afraid to take the necessary steps to ensure that we have the kind of parliament that will bring about the changes that are required.
The introduction of this long awaited Bill into the House is a particularly proud moment, and a landmark achievement for the Progressive Democrats' Party. Reform of the system of ministerial pension has for the Progressive Democrats since our establishment which, coincidentally, was just six years ago this coming weekend——
Happy birthday.
Happy birthday.
One of the founding principles of the Progressive Democrats is to restore public trust, confidence and credibility in our political institutions, and in our political practitioners. To that end we are extremely conscious that a major anomaly and impediment to achieving such public trust was the system of payment of ministerial pensions to former office holders. This was on the basis that Deputies of this House, who had served as Ministers for at least three years, or as Parliamentary Secretaries or Ministers of State for at least eight years, would qualify for and receive a pension notwithstanding the fact that they would still be Members of the Oireachtas; also that they could have an income from other, private sources, and could be people of relatively young age, and certainly not of an age generally regarded as being in the "retirement" category. We know, for instance, that in recent times Members of this House in their thirties have received ministerial pensions arising from their service in Government.
The blunt question which the Progressive Democrats have sought to square up to is how we can develop and sustain the trust and confidance of the general public in politicians and in our political institutions and, at the same time, demand sacrifices of them in the interest of trying to get this country to live within its means, while tolerating such anomalies as the ministerial pensions system. That was the driving force behind this particular policy initiative of the Progressive Democrats. Indeed, our very first Private Members' time legislative initiative, taken in October 1987 — eight months after the party contested their first general election — proposed the abolition of the ministerial pension system. To demonstrate the Progressive Democrats commitment and earnestness on this matter my party colleague and I voluntarily surrendered our then ministerial pensions, which were roughly in the order of £8,000 per annum for each of us, as an earnest of our determination to lead by example on this important matter. In passing I should note that the former President, Dr. Hillery, also surrendered his ministerial pension and he too demonstrated the kind of stand on this matter which is needed in these tough economic times.
This Ministerial Pensions Bill ranks alongside many other legislative initiatives taken by the Progressive Democrats when in Opposition, which have subsequently been passed into law since our accession to Government.
The legislation before us today has a particular importance in so far as it relates to how we in this House organise some of our own affairs. Looking back on the original debate on this issue in October 1987, what is notable is that the case for such a reform initiative has actually been strengthened in the intervening period. When we in the Progressive Democrats introduced our original Bill, we did so against the particular background of falling confidence in politicians and politics generally. Throughout that debate we argued two key points: that politicians must be seen to remove any apparent privileges which set them apart from the public they are supposed to serve, and which also foster public cynicism. We also argued that politicians had to be able to show that they were prepared to share in the suffering caused by economic hardship and difficult political decisions. My then Dáil colleague, Anne Colley, summed up our arguments when she stated in this House: "Politics is, in a way, on trial — 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."
Today, more than ever, politics here is on trial. Public cynicism with politicians and the political process has reached new levels in the wake of the revelation of recent business scandals and the parallel perception that a small coterie of people, including politicians, comprise some kind of privileged golden circle that is immune from the everyday constraints of fiscal accountability which the great majority of people must accept.
Many of these criticisms are totally unjustified. Certainly the vast majority of people I have met in political life over nearly three decades are straightforward, honest and caring individuals whose primary desire is to help people. That too, is why the Progressive Democrats are so determined that the various investtigations currently under way relating to business scandals must be rigorously pursued, and that any proven wrongdoing must be effectively punished. Resolving anomalies in how the Oireachtas remunerates people who have given service to this State as Government Ministers is another example of the issues that must be tackled. That is the issue, which this Bill, in compliance with the Programme for Government, now deals with.
Besides pension anomalies there are many other matters, such as the way we order, or fail to order, our affairs here in this House, that must also be urgently tackled. As long as politicians fail to conduct their affairs, and judge their own performance, by the criteria they apply to the general public, and the conduct of business outside this House, they will suffer public criticism. This demands change on many fronts; reforming many antiquated Oireachtas procedures; increasing the transparency of the whole political process so the public can know and understand exactly what is happening; introducing a register of interests of all Oireachtas Members, and generally making Dáil proceedings businesslike, efficient, and relevant to the general public.
The Minister voted against that last May.
I am glad, therefore, that the revised Programme for Government, agreed last October, commits the government to tackling all these issues of Dáil procedure, and I believe that when reform measures are brought forward soon, they will result in a more effective and accountable national Parliament.
I believe that this Bill, which embodies the recommendations of the so-called Gleeson Committee or the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector to give it its correct title, is a fair and balanced set of proposals. Our original Bill in 1987 sought a total end to the payment of such pensions to serving Deputies, Senators, MEPs, judges and even the President. In proposing this we recognised the difficulties and even hardship which this might cause to affected individuals. Ideally we would still favour such a radical move to demonstrate clearly that all of us as politicians are prepared to reform ourselves and to share in the difficulties facing the general public.
We accept, however, the recommendations made by the Gleeson Committee on this matter. In the original debate on this issue in 1987 there were many criticisms that the total abolition of ministerial pensions was too severe and would cause unnecessary difficulties for people leaving office and trying to adjust to a new salary level for themselves and their families. I do not believe that anybody could criticise the proposals before us today on those grounds. These proposals, in my view, tackle the injustices of the existing system while taking into account the legitimate entitlements and needs of former office holders and public representatives. The provisions also introduce a greater degree of transparency to the general salaries and benefits of Oireachtas Members other than Ministers, the absence of which until now has been a further inappropriate anomoly.
This Bill is no magic cure-all to tackle public cynicism or improve the perception of Members of this House. Indeed, if that were our only reason for action it would be wrong. This Bill is an important step forward. I hope that it heralds a new openness and honesty among the Members of the Oireachtas and a greater willingness on our behalf to break down the false and unjustifiable privileges which have been built up around this House and which have so damaged public faith in it.
When I spoke in the debate on this matter four years ago I spoke of my belief that there was 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 faced permanent unemployment, when thousands of people were forced to emigrate annually and when many people in the public service had lost their jobs. I asked how could we in this House ask that difficult decisions affecting the ordinary people of this country be taken if we who administer those decisions are not prepared to apply any cutbacks that affect ourselves. It was for that reason that my colleague, Deputy O'Malley, and myself took the decision to relinquish the pension to which we were entitled at that time. It is for that same reason that I commend this revised system to the House today and urge that by its acceptance, we demonstrate our willingness to share in the economic difficulties that face everyone in this country at present. I wish to share the rest of my time with Deputy Power.
I would have been happier if the Minister had mentioned that at the commencement of his speech.
I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle, but I thought I was in order.
I will permit it with the approval of the House. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. As has been said by a number of speakers already, there is always great public interest in the salaries and allowances of TDs and Ministers. There is a perception throughout the country that TDs are very well paid wealthy individuals, who are in politics for what they can get out of it. From my short experience in the House the opposite is the truth, some Deputies are struggling and finding it very difficult to exist. When one looks at a TD's salary in isolation one may consider it good but when one considers the expenses a Deputy has to incur in his day to day work one realises that very little is left out of the monthly cheque. We have the opportunity today to tell the country what it is like to be a TD but we are in a difficult position in that we have to legislate on our salary and allowances.
It was suggested previously that we should have a register of Members' interests. I have no doubt that the public would be surprised to learn of the overdrafts some Deputies have to have. Indeed, I can let them have details of mine anytime. A number of Deputies had good businesses before they came to the Dáil but when they lost their seat or had to retire, there was very little to go home to, as the business was gone. It has been proven time and again that it is an almost impossible task to try to run a business while at the same time carry out the duties of a Deputy.
Deputy McCartan says we should be treated the same as all other workers. While that sounds fine, when one looks at the statistics one can see that it is not fair to treat Deputies in the same way as all other workers because we have what is possibly the most insecure job one could have. The election results bear this out. Almost 25 per cent of all Deputies failed to retain their seat at the last general election. That is a staggering number. It places people in a very difficult position. I am sure the results of the next election will not be any different, and as the electorate are becoming more volatile, I guess that we will see that a figure greater than 25 per cent will fail to return to this House. In the early eighties we had three general elections within an 18 month period. This placed financial hardship on Deputies and I know that some people are still paying for the cost of those elections, even those who were lucky enough to be re-elected.
It is important that we have a good system for rewarding our elected representatives. As someone once said, if you pay peanuts you can expect to get only monkeys. We do have a Foxe, a Rabbitte and a Stagg in the House but we have no monkeys as of yet.
We have a Harte also, and a Spring.
I wish to comment on the proposed severance allowances for Ministers. When a Minister loses office he will get 75 per cent of his salary for the first six months, reducing to 50 per cent for the following 12 months and to 25 per cent for the following six months. He will, therefore, be rewarded in some shape or form for up to two years after losing ministerial office. We all accept that the present ministerial pension scheme is ridiculous. It is unacceptable and indefensible. I am delighted to see that some action has been taken to remedy this, but personally I think the proposed severance allowances for Ministers cannot be justified. We are all elected as Members, when one becomes a Minister a car and two drivers are put at one's disposal as well as all sorts of backup facilities. I appreciate the workload of Ministers and the good work they try to do but the terms of the proposed severance allowances are completely wrong. We should be taking productive measures and not simply measures to please the public — getting rid of the existing pension scheme and replacing it with these new provisions. I welcome the fact that pensions will not be payable until a Deputy reaches the age of 55. The situation up to now was ridiculous.
Section 11 enables the facilities provided for Members of Dáil Éireann to be extended to cover contributions towards the cost of telephone calls — arising from their duties as public representatives — made from their homes or constituency offices. This has to be welcomed. It is essential that Deputies living outside the capital have their constituency offices in their constituencies. As the telephone is used to a large extent to communicate, the telephone bill is a heavy burden and it is a welcome fact that this has finally been recognised. A great many Deputies will breathe a sigh of relief at that change.
Again may I appeal to the Minister to have the ministerial severance allowance proposal examined further. As I have said previously, I think Ministers are well looked after while in office and there is therefore no call for a severance allowance of the magnitude proposed in the Bill.
With your permission, sir, I wish to share my time with Deputy Creed.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
As one of the newer Deputies I have listened to the wisdom of people who have served a long time in this House. They can talk from their experience of the harsh realities of political life, however, I will try to give the benefit of my experience of the role of a Deputy and how I see the way the State recompenses a Deputy for his work. We should explode the myth straightaway that Deputies are rich people. Many of us — as Deputy Gay Mitchell said — are the sole breadwinners in the home and our entire income is dependent on political life. Some Deputies may be fortunate to have another income but any rural Deputy is aware that not alone does he contribute but that his wife and family contribute by answering the telephone and attending to the needs of constituents. Indeed the life of a rural politician is very different from that of an urban politician, especially in a place like Dublin. A rural politician must be accessible at all times, it behoves him to be accessible because if he is not, the people will quickly tire of him.
The demands made on a TD are not only national demands. There is a belief in the country that when TDs go to Dublin they work at a nice leisurely pace. Indeed, when people watch television and see only a few Members in the Chamber they wonder where the other Deputies are. Most Deputies are not only preparing speeches to participate in Dáil debates but are also working on behalf of their constituents. Not many people know that when a Deputy is in Dublin he or she is available from 9.30 a.m. until 11 p.m. or midnight. When a Deputy returns to his or her rural constituency, he or she is expected to attend a never-ending list of meetings and has to be available and accessible to the public. We are all proud to be available to the public.
I have read in the papers at times of people professing that we are elected to be statesmen and legislators and we should not have to devote as much time as we do to the needs of our constituents. It is by meeting people at constituency level and debating specific issues, as well as answering personal queries, that we can be more effective in the national Assembly. Every Deputy is genuinely involved in looking after the needs of his or her constituents. Whether we like it or not, the Deputy's role of advising and representing constituents will continue for as long as the present system prevails because many people do not have the means to find out their true rights, they rely on a certain amount of advice.
Listening to the debate this afternoon I was amused at the moral righteousness displayed by the Progressive Democrats. I listened to their able, eloquent spokesman, the Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy, a short time ago. The Bill serves him extremely well. The House has had to put up with an amount of sanctimonious humbug from the Progressive Democrats. It is about time they copped on and realised that they are not deluding the public with such carry-on any more.
Deputy McCartan, who is extremely well-off and is hardly dependent on politics for his bread and butter, displayed a great element of begrudgery in his contribution. Again, I considered him to be playing party politics in the attitude he took. He can possibly afford to do so in that by all accounts he is a very wealthy man.
This matter has been debated for a long time and the Gleeson report was heralded over the years as one that contained a magic formula aimed at improving the lot of Oireachtas representatives. It is questionable, however, if the Bill improves the lot of Members. Those who gain will be those within the golden circle of the Oireachtas, the Ministers and Ministers of State, as they will be given severance payments and other allowances.
In many cases Oireachtas Members make a tremendous sacrifice to get into the House. It is not that they mind making the sacrifice but many of them are unfortunate enough to lose their seat in the following election and have to seek an alternative career. It is unfortunate that section 5 does not seriously examine the question of compensation for Members in the way as Ministers and Ministers of State are to be compensated. It is because of a lack of foresight and knowledge that the issue was not examined. I am sure that those who drafted the legislation were aware that the majority of Members are backbenchers and will remain as backbenchers. We do not mind being backbenchers and we get on with our business but it is to be regretted that those who prepared the Bill did not see fit to establish a proper system for backbenchers.
I was very pleased to discover that Fianna Fáil Members had extreme reservations about the legislation and set up their own committee to carry out research on this issue. I share their feelings. It is fine to resubmit the Bill to a review committee for recommendations but I wonder how long it will take for that committee to report. The Minister is taking the issue no further. It should have been addressed in the Bill. The Bill should have been decisive and examined all aspects.
The Bill provides for the removal of the special tax concession for Members and makes an alternative recompense in finance. A newspaper article recently indicated that the media are back to their favourite hobby, saying that TDs are receiving a big rise. Deputies are not getting a big rise, all that is happening is that we are about to receive recompense for an allowance given in the past. It is time the media got off our backs. The media feel we should not look for our proper rights as Oireachtas representatives, yet every other section of the community looks for its rights. Why should we not look for our rights? We all know of the great efforts by most Members to serve their constituents. Given the amount of time that went into the preparation of the Bill, it is unfortunate that that feature was not addressed.
When the Minister for Energy said the Bill was fair and equitable and that the Progressive Democrats were delighted with it I am sure he was expressing a personal view. I doubt if he was expressing the views of all Members. However, the Bill is a step in the right direction. On behalf of the many Members who incur great expense in the use of telephones in our constituencies I welcome the enabling measures aimed at remedying that anomaly. Considering the amount of time that was spent on researching the Bill, it should have been better. However, I suppose we have to be happy with the effort that was made and welcome the Bill.
I thank my colleague for allowing me to share his time. My motivation in deciding to speak on the Bill was much the same as that of Deputy Finucane, to explode some of the myths that exist in relation to TDs. One of my colleagues referred earlier to pub talk, which late at night, views all Deputies as millionaires.
I have no doubt that the majority of politicians of all political hues and shades in the House are honourable in the conduct of their affairs. It is unfair to lump all politicians in the same boat because of the inappropriate and offensive actions of a few.
I have not read the Gleeson report but I do not consider it to be an inhibiting factor in the debate. The perspective I should like to bring to the debate is that of a rural Deputy and the financial position of such a Deputy.
I echo the sentiment expressed by my colleague Deputy Finucane in relation to news media inaccuracy. Yesterday I read in one of my local evening papers a report that half of a Deputy's salary was tax free — a completely inaccurate statement. On occasions I wish I had the workload and the salary of some of those who set themselves up as the guardians and watchdogs of the public interest.
The provisions of the Bill will leave me marginally better off due to the telephone allowance. While waiting for the debate I checked my most recent telephone bill which amounted to more than £200 a month. That bill was for my home office, and I receive no allowance for that telephone. Although there is no such provision in the Bill, I have heard talk of putting restrictions on the telephone facilities in the House. Facilities for Deputies are archaic and until Deputies on all sides stand united and protest about them we cannot expect to progress our case any further. It is regrettable that some Deputies and some parties are seeking to make political gain out of the Bill. As a single person, out of a salary of £28,000 I receive approximately £16,000 net. Out of that one must run a rural constituency, without any mileage allowance for travel and with telephone calls being made at one's own expense. While that salary may appear attractive I can honestly say, with my hand on my heart, I would be better off had I pursued a career in teaching or engaged in farming, both of which options were open to me. My salary would be smaller but overall I would be better off financially. Many people cannot grasp the difference between one's salary and one's net financial position which is not accurately reflected therein. Perhaps that is a reality people do not want to face up to.
Another important aspect is that, at no stage in this House must we create, either by way of legislation or inaction, a cosy club atmosphere which would preclude many people out there, with a lot to offer, from entering politics as a profession because of its attendant rumuneration and conditions. I think it was Deputy Power who referred to the fact that, in the last general election, a quarter of outgoing Deputies seeking re-election failed to be returned. That is an indication of the job security attached to membership of this House. There must be coupled with that insecurity the cost of engaging in elections, of being re-elected which means it is fast acting as a disincentive to very many people with an awful lot to offer coming forward for election. Indeed, I am annoyed at the context within which this debate is taking place. Three Independent Senators produced a Bill in the Seanad seeking a Register of Members interests. There are many other desirable features which could form part and parcel of an overall reform of these Houses which, in terms of public confidence therein, would do much to restore flagging morale in the democratic system as it obtains.
The Minister for Energy referred to that item a few minutes ago. Yet some weeks ago his party and the Fianna Fáil Party rejected such a proposal in Private Members' time. Some credence can be given to the level of apathy and cynicism on the part of the public to Members of this House, when we fail to devise a transparent system highlighting the real position of all Members of this House.
I might make another point in relation to the contribution of the Minister for Energy. It is my understanding that under the provisions of the Bill, as drafted, the Minister for Energy will be in a position to claim the ministerial pension he has foregone in recent years; that when he reaches age 55 — if he has not reached it already — he will be in a position to claim that pension in addition to severance pay. I want to put the Minister for Energy and his colleagues on notice that we on this side of the House will act as guardians of his high moral ground to ensure that he does not sneak in the back-door to claim that pension about which he made so much political noise and capital by virtue of the fact that he has foregone it in recent years.
As I see it, the Bill before us is an attempt by the Minister to address a perceived scandal. I use the words "perceived scandal" deliberately, that of people drawing pensions while remaining Members of the House. This so-called scandal was highlighted in the mid-eighties by the media in general and people outside the House. At that time one Member of the House was highlighted on account of his age, the fact that he was receiving a ministerial pension at a very young age while still remaining a Member of the House. That campaign was targeted to the extent that that individual lost his seat in the following election. Indeed, it is ironic that the loss of that seat at the time underlined the need for some form of compensation for Members of this House who serve as officeholders or Ministers. That individual — and I am sure he is not alone — was Minister one day and unemployed the next day. As some Deputies have said, there are those who will adopt the high moral ground contending, "Well, tough luck. He is gone; he is out of the political arena". I do not happen to be of that point of view.
That person became the victim of a campaign vigorously pursued by people generally outside the House to change a system which was and is totally misunderstood. At that time there was a sustained media attack, fuelled by some people within the political system. Unfortunately politicians lay very low while that campaign was being engaged in and was most vigorously pursued. In that respect we can only fault ourselves and pose the question why did politicians adopt that attitude? Why did they lie low? Why did they allow themselves be cowed? I believe it was because there was a mistaken belief on the part of politicians that perhaps the problem would evaporate or that the system obtaining was not defensible. Perhaps politicians arrived at that conclusion or perhaps it resulted from the generally low esteem in which politicians hold their profession. Perhaps we do not value sufficiently highly the role of the politician. Certainly we do not appear to value it sufficiently highly to defend what is defensible and justifiable. Politicians, and certainly in that case, allowed the media and publichouse philosophers to cow them into silence. Perhaps some politicians felt that the time was ripe, that it was the popular view to put forward this so-called scandal. We were given an example of the reasoning behind that view by an earlier speaker, when we heard again the high moral ground being adopted. When the Minister contributed in the House earlier the reason he advanced was that perhaps there was a public demand for such, that we had to address it because of public demand, because the public were scandalised. I contend the public were scandalised because the media misrepresented the position and politicians of various hues went along with the tide at that time.
Of course there was a well orchestrated demand for a change in the system. Some politicians and political parties thought it would be very popular to jump on the bandwagon and attempt to implement changes in the system as it had obtained. I make no apology for describing this as a campaign; it was not a debate. A debate might have provided reasoned arguments from both sides but there was none. As usual, the campaign engaged in produced a lot more heat than light, when politicians and the body politic in general suffered as a result. It was easy to go along with the popular view, with the crowd, the parish pump philosophers and so on. Regrettably, politicians, and one party in particular, did.
What party is the Deputy talking about?
I would not insult Deputy Harte's intelligence by attempting to answer that question.
I know who the Deputy is speaking about but people reading the Official Report in ten years time may not know.
I do not think so, but if they share the same view as Deputy Harte they will not be there in ten years' time.
My initials are PD. Would that be a hint?
It would be.
Acting Chairman
I would ask Deputies to refrain from cross-talk. This is very serious business.
The only scandal involved in the current arrangement of payments to Ministers and to office holders is the fact that they are referred to as pensions. The misuse of that term has scandalised the public. They are scandalised that a man who may be only 30 years old can get a pension while still a serving Member of the House. The normal perception is that a person should be aged 65 or 66 before getting a pension. When this campaign started it should have been pointed out that these payments should not be regarded as pensions in the normal sense. It was convenient for some to use this terminology to deride and ridicule politicians and politics generally. Unfortunately, they have had their way.
The Shanley Committee recognised in 1937 the need for special provisions for holders of ministerial office. The two basic reasons they put forward hold good today, although Mr. Gleeson does not agree. The first reason was that a Minister has to cut himself adrift from his profession or occupation while holding ministerial office. Following a lengthy tenure of office he would have difficulty in returning to that profession. He would have no assurance for the future if some financial arrangement were not made. That might discourage people from becoming Ministers. The second basic reason put forward was the desirability of retaining former Ministers in political life, particularly people on the Government side before an election and subsequently on the Opposition front bench. We need to encourage such people to remain in the House and to continue contributing from their skill and experience. I fear the effect of this Bill might be that we will lose some people who have valuable experience. The reasons outlined by Shanley still hold good. Payments to office holders meet those concerns but they should probably not be called pensions.
The tenor of my remarks might appear to indicate that I agree that pensions should be paid to people still serving as Members of the Oireachtas, but that is not what I am saying. I feel strongly that any man or woman who was a Minister should be paid handsomely for his or her ability and experience and the payment should not be in the form of a pension but in the form of some kind of increment. It would be a fair way of rewarding former Ministers and encouraging them to retain membership of this House having lost ministerial office. The Bill addresses the problem of the pension by providing for payment after the age of 55. It is a normal part of anybody's life that he or she should be rewarded with a pension. The point about office holders not being willing to serve in the House after losing ministerial office is not addressed adequately in the Bill. An attempt is made but the issue could be addressed much more effectively.
The introduction of some form of incremental payment would be appropriate, not just for Ministers but for Members. I am aware of the Gleeson Committee's approach to the whole idea of increments and the fact that it was ruled out. I do not accept that approach. The question of increments is addressed very briefly and specious arguments are put forward as to why it should not be considered. It is said that there might be objections on constitutional grounds but there is no detailed reference to these constitutional grounds and no reference to who might make the challenge. It is almost a throwaway remark that we could have a constitutional difficulty if we allowed the payment of increments. Another reason put forward was that there could be grounds other than length of service. People could argue that service in local government should be considered or that the number of votes in the previous election should be taken into account when deciding increments. I do not accept that. A scheme should be introduced whereby increments are awarded purely on the basis of Oireachtas service. There is no need to entertain arguments about votes or local government service.
These arguments put forward by Gleeson cannot be substantiated, nor can the argument that the theory behind incremental scales is that the maximum of the scale is the full rate for the job which one moves towards as one gains experience and becomes a better performer. It is said that this does not apply to politicians. Why not? I think I am a better politician now than when I entered this House five years ago. I have gained experience and have possibly more to offer. I could not accept the argument that experience gained does not make a difference. The longer one is here and the more experience is gained the better the Deputy as a public representative. Gleeson mentions that in many cases in the public service increments are based on performance. That is nonsense. I come from a teaching background and I have never heard of any teacher being told that he or she would not get an increment because performance was not up to scratch. It is a ludicrous argument.
The other argument put forward by Gleeson is that it is not done elsewhere. If the committee would do a survey of facilities available in other parliaments and introduce those facilities here, I would accept that argument but I cannot accept it at present.
I do not see any reason for a TD not being paid an extra amount for each year's experience. I do not believe I should receive the same level of payment as somebody who has 20 or 30 years experience as a TD. I would have no objection to people getting increments on that basis. Neither would I have any objection to giving extra increments to a Minister, including a service increment, for the experience he has attained during his ministerial career. That would address the problem satisfactorily. It would also address the two problems identified by Shanley many years ago and which have not been fully addressed in this Bill. Some Deputies have argued that TDs and Senators should be treated the same as other workers. I am sure that like me, most Deputies would love if the Unfair Dismissals Act could be applied in our case. I look forward to the day when this can be done.
I want to make a number of general points. Reference has been made to allowances for chairmen of committees. I think the Taoiseach has referred in the House to this issue. However, it has not been addressed in the Bill. I should like provision to be made for the payment of allowances to the chairmen of committees by way of enabling legislation or amendment as quickly as possible. Chairmen — I think one of them is present in the House — put a lot of work into the committees of the House. By the same token, I also think committees should be given much more power. The payment of an allowance would not just be of benefit to the chairmen. It would also be of benefit to the committees and the effective running of this House. We have rightly agreed to pay allowances to the chairmen of local authorities and we should do the same in regard to the chairmen of the committees of this House.
I wish to refer to the criticisms made of TDs. Much of this criticism emanates from the media. I am glad to see that one member of the press is present. TDs are frequently criticised for never being in the Chamber. Reference is made to this on the back pages of Sunday newspapers and so on. We have a very big press gallery and TDs should at times refer to the number of journalists sitting in the press gallery. I know what the journalists who are not in the press gallery are doing and they should be fair enough to point out what TDs are doing when they are not in this Chamber.
Who will print that?
It will be printed in the Official Report.
The Irish Productivity Centre were recently asked to tot up our expenses to see how much better off we were or were not as TDs. I was shocked when I did this exercise. Having taken all my expenses into account. I would be about £5,000 better off if I had continued in my profession as a teacher. In addition, I would be entitled to three months holidays during the summer which I would not be criticised for. Neither would I have people calling to my door day and night looking for various things——
They are welcome.
They are most welcome and the more who come the better.
The Deputy can send them over to me.
I think they are going over anyway.
It is important to put this on the record of the House. I am not complaining but I believe I should be adequately paid for the job I do.
I wish to share my time with my colleagues, Deputies Farrelly and McCormack.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
My contribution has, of necessity, also to be brief. I speak as someone who was a Minister, has been a Member of this House for 15 years and been involved in politics for 22 years. This has meant a disruption of my career at a cost to me. I say that because when I ceased to be a Minister my salary would have been halved if I had not got an allowance which I regard as a service allowance but which unfortunately is called a pension, something it should never have been called. I am substantially worse off by a long shot than I was as a Minister. I make that point not as a special plea for myself but merely to point out the difficulty we will have in attracting into politics top rank people who earn a lot more than Members of this House. Nobody can be expected to give up a job which pays a significantly higher salary than we receive to become a Member of this House and sacrifice the welfare and well-being of their family in so doing. This means that many top people who could give great service to this country, help to ensure that better economic decisions are taken and give the benefit of their additional and better management skills are not attracted into politics. Not only is the remuneration for TDs much less than most professionals can attract in jobs outside this House but the working hours and conditions here are also much less attractive.
We have to put up with comments about our long holidays from journalists who know that recesses are not holidays. They are recesses of this Chamber but they are not holidays. The letters, phone calls and invitations to meet different groups in our constituencies still flow during our holidays. Those of us who have Front Bench responsibilities and the chairmen of committees have to carry out research and do their work. We also have to make visits around the country to keep in touch with events. Even though I agree that the recesses tend to be on the long side they are not holidays; they are periods for research and preparation.
When the Dáil is in session we have to sit very long hours. We also have to attend to our constituency work during this time. These conditions of employment are known to people outside the House. My sole purpose in contributing to this debate is not to make a special plea for TDs, Ministers or ex-Ministers, but to point out that it is going to be very difficult to attract top rank people into politics not just because of the pay and conditions but also because of the ill-informed and unbalanced presentation which frequently occurs in the media. This country needs to attract top rank people into Parliament. It is in that context that we need to look at the Bill now before the House.
As we saw recently in the Greencore case, the chief executive of that company was paid £150,000, the going rate in private industry. That is the level of salary paid to the chief executive of a company whose turnover would be a fraction of the estimate for the smallest Department of State. I know from my experience as a Minister the difficulty of attracting into the semi-State sector good, top class chief executives for a salary equivalent to that of the Taoiseach's salary. I have been very disappointed at the attacks made on the payment of allowances to former Ministers provided for in the Bill. In particular, I disagree with what was said by the Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy. The action taken by him and his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley, only served to fuel the mistaken belief that there should not be some additional compensation for ministerial and Dáil service. Increments are paid to all those who work in the public service, except Members of the Oireachtas. Increments were paid to the workers in Guinness, a company for which I worked. Some of my colleagues in different offices in Guinness got more pay than I did because of their service but I knew that as my service increased and as I gained experience I would get additional emoluments to match my performance. That is a common feature in industrial relations.
I was a shop steward for the Federated Workers' Union of Ireland, now SIPTU, and in reorganisations or changes very often a person on a particular salary would be moved to a job of lesser responsibility but never on lower pay. That would be standard trade union procedure in any renegotiation. However, former Ministers are expected not only to live without their car, driver, telephone and newspapers which are rightly provided, they are also expected to live on half pay plus a small service allowance which is now being abolished by this Bill. It is a mistake.
The terms and conditions for Members of parliament completely put off many people who could serve the State and save it perhaps tens of millions of pounds in any one year by bringing their experience to public affairs. The last speaker said that the Unfair Dismissals Act did not apply to us; nor does the Act apply to office premises. We have to work in smaller offices than any civil servant would be permitted to work in under law and the same applies to factories. We have smaller offices for ourselves and our secretaries than any factory or office in this city. Our terms and conditions of employment repel the sort of people we should be seeking to attract into public life to produce the economic results which would give hope to so many thousands of our unemployed.
A debate on the salaries of TDs or Ministers arouses interest, which is good because we do not have anything to be ashamed of in debating our situation in public although it would not happen in relation to any other employment. It is a pity that the debate is confined and that the Bill is being rushed through so quickly as a longer debate would have been more satisfactory.
I listened with interest to my constituency colleague, the Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy, whose contribution was a political broadcast on behalf of the Progressive Democrats. He claimed that they wrote and delivered the Bill; I thought it was introduced as a result of the Gleeson Committee report. I will give him credit for looking after the Progressive Democrats in the Bill. However, he forgot to add that the Bill is not abolishing pensions for present or past Ministers, it only refers to future Ministers who, I presume, will be on this side of the House. However, I am a backbencher and I should speak about the effect the Bill will have on people in my position. If a TD who has served five years — which is similar to my position — loses a seat he or she will get three months salary. Nothing else is provided for in the Bill even though there is a provision for the Minister to re-examine it and he has enabling powers to remove section 5 subject to the Gleeson Committee's agreement. It is a question of "live horse and you'll get grass." I understand that Fianna Fáil backbenchers criticised that aspect of the Bill and they were promised the matter would be examined. However, I am not too confident in that regard.
Before I came into this House about two and a half years ago I was a livestock auctioneer and had my own business. I worked in five livestock marts and I spent 25 years in the business. When I was elected to the Dáil some of the people in the marts gave me little presents, a bicycle lamp in one case and——
Did the Deputy declare it?
I did. I also received a portable television from Gort mart. Naturally, as soon as I took up duty here, the marts employed someone in my place and of course I did not receive any redundancy payment. If I lost my seat in the next election my job would not be there. It took me ten years to build up my business. When I started my wages were £9.10.9d. I remember it well. I gave my landlady £4 per week. Naturally, as time went on, my income rose to a level similar to that which I now enjoy.
I could lose my seat for many reasons, perhaps more of County Galway would be included in County Mayo for electoral purposes, the Minister for the Environment, Deputy O'Hanlon, or an independent commission might carve up constituencies. I could lose my seat for all sorts of reasons and I would be out of a job. I spent ten years trying to get into the Dáil and I am not sorry to be here. I stood in 13 elections in my 17 years political career; I won eight elections and lost five. The five I lost were in relation to Oireachtas elections. The road to the Dáil was hard and, as I said, I am not sorry to be here but I should like the Minister and the Gleeson Committee to know the position in relation to backbenchers. I am sorry I cannot contribute further as I am sharing my time with Deputy Farrelly.
I should like to make a couple of points in the short time at my disposal. In 1961 my late father was elected to this House at a salary of £1,000. He had to buy a fairly good car because he had to do a lot more driving; the new car cost £350. Today our salary is in the region of £28,000 but even quite a modest car costs about £15,000, half the annual salary. That puts into perspective the way we have looked after ourselves. We never seem to stand up and be counted.
The provisions in the Bill only go part of the way in dealing with the problems. Is there anybody in any Department of State with ten, 20 or 30 years service who is receiving the same salary as the person starting tomorrow will receive? This is the only institution of State where regardless of years of service we receive the same salary as the person who may be elected after the next election. I do not believe we are doing ourselves any real service in the proposals we are being asked to pass today. I am surprised that Gleeson did not accept a proposal to introduce increments into the system for Members. I wonder whether Mr. Gleeson would accept the same salary today as he received ten years ago? I am sure he would not. I would like to think this is only the beginning of trying to do something positive to bring ourselves into line and to protect our wives and families in the event of anything happening to us and especially those who depend solely on this job and on the electorate.
As Members of this House I propose — and the Minister should take it on board — that we consider, through the Committee on Procedure and Priviliges, the appointment of a public relations officer on behalf of the Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. What have we to hide? The publicity we receive is of the worst type because nobody looks behind the scenes of this Chamber to what work Members of this House have to do not alone in this House but in their constituencies. As a member of the Front Bench for the past nine or ten months I have been visiting different constituencies throughout the country collecting further information and trying to bring forward proposals for different policy changes. The appointment I propose would go a long way towards solving some of the problems we encounter every time we speak about ourselves and the allowances we receive.
We have no allowance for telephone expenses. We are the only organisation in the State who use telephones in our constituencies to provide a service and where that expense will not be allowed against income tax. Many years ago when I became a Member of this House I asked that that allowance be provided but it was not provided. This Bill provides for an allowance and I hope it will be a realistic one. The monthly cost of running a telephone in a constituency is somewhere in the region of £350. The bill I receive on a two-monthly basis is practically the same every two months. I wonder whether that is the case with everybody else.
An allowance should be agreed forthwith for the chairmen of committees of this House. Further committees are required to reform this House and to make it workable in order that people would not be complaining about the perceived long holidays — which we do not have in real terms. The committees could work throughout the summer and at other times when we have holidays. Deputy Gay Mitchell is one of those chairmen who does an excellent job on behalf of the taxpayers. He is an example of the type of person who should be involved in committees to give us an opportunity to get more experience. He said earlier today that every person who comes before him receives a salary far in excess of that received by any Member of this House. It is our own fault that we are in this position in 1991. I would ask that favourable consideration be given to the appointment of a public relations officer so that the general public and the members of the press who are not always here when certain debates are taking place would be informed of the type of work we do as public representatives.
No matter what we say in this House today, the media will hammer us. Most times the political correspondents adopt a reasonable attitude towards us but occasionally the small journalist, who tries to be the big guy, writes snide remarks about us. Regardless of what we say here today, we are all here because we enjoy what we do. I hope to be here for a few years more but I would be here in any case even if I was not paid a penny. Many of us have a vocation and we are committed to what we do because it has all to do with helping people. Having said that, we are penalised because we have this sense of idealism.
I should like to refer to the cynical attitude of some of the civil servants who drafted this Bill, and I refer in particular to the three months severence pay whereby you get your pension three months after you have got your severence pay. Perhaps the Minister of State will correct me if I am wrong but there was no mention of a three month tax-free lump sum. Many public servants begrudge advising Ministers on what TDs receive. It is about time these gentlemen knew that we in this House have a certain say in some of the things which would be of interest to them, and perhaps we will begin to consider this. It is about time they ceased to keep down our salaries. I am sick and tired of the mealymouthed attitude. I understand we are supposed to be paid at the same rate as a higher executive officer in the Civil Service. Those higher executive officers do not normally work 60 or 70 hours a week; if so, they get overtime, whereas we do not. We do what we do because we enjoy it but we are penalised.
It has been suggested that chairmen of this House should receive an extra allowance, and I agree with that. One of the finest chairmen of any committee of this House is Deputy Gay Mitchell. He is an Opposition Deputy and a member of my constituency. Why should he and his family be penalised as mine have been over the years, because they are idealistic, because they work hard and because they have something to offer? Why are people like him and others not encouraged to enter public life? When these people enter into public life they take a vow of poverty. I am sure that will evoke a big horse laugh among some sectors, but it is interesting to note that former trade union officials who became politicians have told me they were far better off as trade union officials — I am not talking about senior trade union officials but those at the lower level.
I will be in this House 27 years next April and I receive the same salary as the person who is elected now. There is no such thing as incremental increases and that is bad. I would have expected to receive the same treatment as a member of the Garda Síochána who gets one months's salary per year up to a maximum of 18 years service. That is what we should be asking for when the Minister begins to regulate the provisions and I make no apology for it. The people of Ireland are not begrudgers; there are individuals who are begrudgers and they will always be reported in the newspapers, and a few of the very highly paid presenters on radio and television progammes are also begrudgers.
Acting Chairman
I will have to ask the Deputy to conclude.
I would not mind getting one quarter of the amount some of those people receive who try to make fools of us because we happen to be in the invidious position of awarding increases to ourselves.
Some of us are even reduced to producing Christmas quiz books to keep the bread on the table.
I would not use the word "reduced" in those circumstances.
God help us, if we ever have to live on the dole.
God help him if he ever has to live on one salary coming into this House.
(Interruptions.)
I appeal to Deputies to allow me reply to the debate.
Acting Chairman
The Minister should be allowed proceed.
I am grateful to all the Deputies who contributed so wisely and so well to this debate. People do not enter political life for money. Since entering political life and meeting Members from all sides of the House, I have found a commitment and idealism which has nothing to do with money. I say to anybody contemplating entering political life that there is no gold at the end, at the beginning or in the middle of the political rainbow.
Deputy Mitchell said that TDs had fared badly under Gleeson, compared with judges and higher civil servants. Members of the House should not and cannot be allowed to determine their own pay and conditions, not because they would not do it fairly, but because the appropriate approach is to refer these matters to an independent body for adjudication. This has been accepted as the correct procedure for many years. To do otherwise would leave us open to being accused of being judges in our own cause.
Can one be a judge in a judge's cause?
It is not possible for Members of the House to determine what their remuneration should be. In order that we be seen to be fair an independent body should make that decision.
Deputy Mitchell also suggested that Mr. Gleeson simply converted the old tax deduction, frozen since 1983, to a cash sum. The review body made their finding on expenses based on factual information given by Members. Deputies may have been disappointed at the outcome but the methodology as outlined by the review body appears, on the face of it, to be correct. In any event, expenses are being reviewed again and that should be noted by Deputies.
Deputies Dempsey and Mitchell said that there should be incremental increases and that the longer serving Deputies should be paid more. I do not agree. Under the Constitution all Deputies entering the House are equal. Deputies are not in a private company, they are elected to do a public job. In many cases the electorate, in removing one Deputy to elect another, far from expecting the new Deputy to be worse believe, more often than not, that the new Deputy will, if anything, do the job better. In those circumstances one could not make the argument that longevity should mean an increase in salary. Incremental scales for Deputies was considered by the review body in detail in report No. 30 but they recommended against the principle. If one accepts the concept of independent adjudication one must accept the final outcome even if we do not agree with all of the arguments put forward.
Deputy Howlin was very concerned about the severance arrangements for TDs and Senators as indeed were other Deputies. While the three months mentioned by Deputies formed part of the original proposals, it will be the basis of an amendment from the Government side tonight in order that the matter can be subjected to a special comprehensive examination by the review body. I do not accept that a three months severance period for TDs is adequate in the peculiar circumstances in which a Deputy might find himself or herself on leaving office.
Deputy McCartan wished to know the cost of the proposed measure. It is not possible to make an accurate assessment of pension costs and savings because there are so many imponderable factors involved, including options to be exercised by individuals. It would not be appropriate to make what I can only describe as a guesstimate——
I invite the Minister to do that.
——which could turn out to be totally inaccurate. Deputy McCartan would be the first to come into the House and say that I was totally inaccurate, if I were to simply produce a pension figure. I cannot do that. When Deputy McCartan says people are cynical he might do well to remember that when people are cynical that cynicism has sometimes been given birth to by the attitude of TDs. That is worth saying.
Deputies McCreevy and Finucane were concerned about the three months severance period. This will be thoroughly examined by the review body. Some Deputies suggested that we would never see the report in the House. I assure the House that we will, I hope within three or four months. Rather than it having to be debated in the House again, a regulation should be placed before the House in order to adopt whatever measure is proposed and agreed.
What is wrong with debate?
Deputy O'Brien suggested changes in the pension scheme for TDs but this Bill does not address that question. This Bill was intended to address Ministers' pensions. The examination of TDs' pensions is a separate matter and is not part of the proposals in the Bill. The Bill does not affect TDs' pensions and only concerns telephone allowances, severance and the special allowance for TDs. Deputy O'Brien and others, jocosely referred to Mr. Gleeson and attacked him. It is unfair to make personal attacks, even jocosely, on Mr. Gleeson who is not in a position to answer back. In relation to any attacks on Mr. Gleeson I must say that the Government have on several occasions expressed their gratitude to him for his public service.
Hear, hear.
We have to be fair to him. Deputy Dempsey spoke about public ignorance and myths with regard to ministerial pensions. Indeed, there are myths about the size of ministerial pensions, and about Ministers' and TDs' salaries. It is important to note that the independent review body in report No. 31 did a good job in explaining the historical background and in dispelling many of the myths and misinformation. I hope that is noted by the media in order that any misconceptions in relation to remuneration, allowances or expenses will be cleared up once and for all.
Question put and agreed to.