Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Dec 1993

Vol. 437 No. 4

Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) (Amendment) Bill, 1993: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

This Bill provides for the payment of allowances to chairpersons of certain Oireachtas committees and to the Leader of the House in the Seanad. It also provides for the removal of the statutory provision — applicable only to Members of the Oireachtas who reside within ten miles of Leinster House — which restricts the payment of travelling allowances to such Members to days on which they attend sittings of the relevant House, or meetings of House committees. In addition, provision is made for the making of payments to non-office holding Deputies and Senators for secretarial assistance as well as for the payment to parties and parliamentary groups of an allowance to enable them to engage staff who work for the parties or groups collectively.

In relation to chairpersons of Oireachtas committees, this Bill will give effect to the recommendations of the review body on higher remuneration in the public sector. This review body recommended payments for chairmen of Oireachtas committees because the workload of the chairperson significantly exceeded what would be regarded as the fully extended range of responsibilities and workload of an "ordinary" Member of the Oireachtas. The review body recommended that it would be appropriate to recommend an allowance of £6,000 per annum for the chairman of each committee, with the exception of the Joint Services Committee which was recommended at £3,000 per annum.

Accordingly, section 2 of the Bill provides that the Government may, by order, provide for the payment of an annual allowance to every non office-holding Member of the Oireachtas who is the holder of the position of chairperson of designated Oireachtas committees. It also provides that the Government may determine the amount of the allowance and that different amounts may be specified in respect of different committees. It is intended that, in line with the review body recommendations, an allowance of £6,000 per annum, updated to £6,500 by reference to pay increases in the meantime will be paid to non-office holding chairpersons of the following committees: the Committee of Public Accounts; the Joint Committee on the Irish Language; the Joint Committee on Women's Rights; the Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies and to the chairman of the British Irish Parliamentary Body and that an allowance of £3,000 a year, updated to £3,250 will be paid in the case of the chairperson of the Joint Services Committee.

As Deputies will be aware, the section of the Programme for a Partnership Government, "Broadening Our Democracy", outlined a range of measures, including a framework for a committee system which the Government believes will develop the role of the Oireachtas. The new committee system, which did not exist at the time of the review body examination, is the most fundamental change in the way the House has conducted its business since the foundation of the State. The success or failure of these committees will largely depend on the effectiveness of the chairpersons as they will play a key role in ensuring the success of the new system. The task will be a difficult and time-consuming one. For that reason, it is felt that the chairpersons of these committees should be paid allowances at a somewhat higher rate than those recommended by the review body for the chairpersons of the committees which were in existence at the time of the review. It is, therefore, intended to pay an allowance at the rate of £9,000 a year to the chairpersons of the following committees: the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs; the Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy; the Select Committee on Legislation and Security; the Select Committee on Social Affairs; the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Section 3 of the Bill provides for the payment of an allowance to the Leader of the House in the Seanad. It is envisaged that an allowance of £6,500 per annum would be paid.

Section 4 of the Bill provides for the payment of these allowances by way of addition to salary to those Members who qualify for them. This section also provides that the allowances will not be payable in respect of any period before 12 January 1993, the date on which the present Government was formed. The intention is that the allowance will be payable from whatever date, after that date, a particular chairperson or Leader of the House was elected to the relevant position.

Section 5 provides that the rates of the allowances may be increased administratively in line with general pay movements in the Civil Service. This is a common provision.

Section 6 provides that contributions in respect of superannuation entitlements, under the Houses of the Oireachtas Members pensions scheme may be deducted from the allowances.

The Bill also provides for a regularisation of the manner in which secretarial assistance to non-office holding Members of Dáil and Seanad Éireann is organised.

A non-statutory scheme for the provision of secretarial assistance to non-office holding Deputies and Senators has been in operation for a number of years. Under this scheme, a secretarial assistant is provided for each non office holding Deputy and for each three Senators. The cost of these secretarial assistants is met from moneys under the Oireachtas Vote. Additionally, a number of posts are provided to each party and to the Technical Group to carry out certain tasks associated with the operation of the parliamentary group, for example, to act as leader's secretary, to assist Whips or the press office or to carry out research work.

Most staff engaged under the scheme are graded at secretarial assistant level, but a small number, including several who are assigned to individual Deputies, are in the promotional grade of administrative assistant, while each party has at least one staff member at administrator level. Members of the scheme are covered by a non contributory pension scheme which is similar to that which applies to unestablished civil servants.

Staff belonging to the scheme, although paid directly from the Oireachtas Vote, are recruited either by Members or by the parties. Under the scheme as currently operated, staff are normally employed under contract for the life of the Dáil and a few weeks thereafter. The difficulty is that the existing arrangements are largely ad hoc in nature and a number of anomalies and general difficulties have arisen.

In addition, a potentially more significant problem relates to the compatibility of the scheme with the Constitution. Legal opinion suggests that the scheme, because it is not provided for in law, could be in conflict with Article 15.15 of the Constitution. There is also a possible constitutional problem in providing secretarial assistance to outgoing Deputies following the dissolution of the Dáil. I consider it most important that any doubts on this score should be resolved without further delay.

The High Court recently considered the question of the status of the members of the scheme. This arose from proceedings brought by a secretarial assistant who has become redundant following the defeat in the 1992 general election of the Deputy who had been her employer. Mr. Justice Keane decided that she, and other members of the scheme, were employees of the political parties or of individual Deputies.

I am convinced that the existing scheme is so flawed as to require replacement. This can, I believe, be best effected by giving statutory force to the judgment of Mr. Justice Keane and by making payments to Deputies which enable them to employ secretaries directly.

Accordingly, section 7 of the Bill under consideration today proposes that an annual payment, of an amount to be determined by order of the Minister for Finance, be made to each non-office holding Deputy to enable him or her to employ a secretarial assistant and to pay related employers costs. It is intended that the amount in question will incorporate a sum to cover up to six hours overtime per sitting week and also incorporate a pension element and a contribution towards other employment charges, such as costs arising on termination of employment.

The Bill deliberately takes the Minister for Finance out of the picture so far as specifying pay or conditions of employment are concerned. There are two reasons for this. First, experience has shown that such ministerial involvement in our existing industrial relations system means that consideration of particular options has to be weighted against potential repercussions throughout the public service. Second, it would simply have the effect of re-establishing existing arrangements which have proved to be unsatisfactory to Members, to the secretarial assistants and to parties generally. Accordingly, the legislation does not confer on the Minister for Finance any function in this regard.

Section 7 provides that staff will be engaged under a contract of service or contract for services with the Member of Dáil Éireann and such contract shall specify that no liabilities arising out of such contract shall attach to the State, to any Minister of the Government or to the chairman of Dáil Éireann. It would, therefore, be a matter for each Deputy to decide whether he or she should employ a secretarial assistant or obtain secretarial services from more than one source.

Currently, secretarial assistants are members of a non-contributory pension scheme which entitles them to a lump sum and pension at the age of 65. It is the intention to protect the superannuation benefits already earned by secretarial assistants either by preserving benefits which would become payable at retirement age or by paying its transfer value into any pension scheme which they might subsequently join.

In view of the possible constitutional impropriety of providing secretarial facilities to outgoing Deputies following the dissolution of the Dáil, section 7 makes provision for this allowance to be treated in the same manner as Deputies' pay — that is a sum equivalent to one-eighteenth of the new allowance to become payable on a dissolution.

As we all know, substantial changes in the composition of both Houses of the Oireachtas take place with each general election. To cover the effects of such changes on secretarial staff, it is intended that provision will be made in the annual payment for an element to cover the cost of statutory redundancy and sums in lieu of minimum notice.

Section 8 of the Bill, provides, in relation to Senators, for similar allowance arrangements, but with an allowance of only one-half of the sum applying to Deputies. This will, effectively, improve the ratio of Senators to secretarial assistants from 1:3 to 1:2. This change reflects the Government's consciousness that Senators as part-time politicians are facing an ever-increasing workload which involves more extensive research, including analysis of numerous reports, than heretofore. Senators have expressed concern about the difficulties which they face in this regard on a number of occasions and the Government considers this to be an ideal opportunity to redress these problems. It will be open to Senators to combine to employ a secretary or alternatively to obtain secretarial services on a part-time basis.

The staff shall be engaged under a contract of service or contract for services with the Member or Members of Seanad Éireann and such contract shall specify that no liabilities arising from such contract shall attach to the State, any Minister of the Government or the chairman of Dáil or Seanad Éireann. Since Senators, unlike Deputies, remain in office pending the election of the new Seanad, the payment of one-eighteenth of the annual allowance, which is provided for in the case of Deputies, will not apply to them.

Section 9 makes provision for those other staff who provide services to each party collectively rather than to individual Deputies. In this context, special provision is being made for parliamentary groups comprising not less than seven non-office — holding Members of Dáil Éireann, such as the Technical Group, so that they too may engage staff to provide support services to the group as a whole. This section includes an enabling provision which would allow the Minister for Finance to make an annual grant to parties and groups to cater for the payment of such staff.

Section 10 provides that allowances payable under sections 7, 8 or 9 shall be exempt from income tax in the hands of any Member of Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann.

Section 11 makes provision for the laying of orders under this Bill before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after they are made to comply with the necessity of bringing the arrangements into line with the requirements of the Constitution and of efficient administrative practice.

The provisions in section 12 enable the Minister for Finance to amend the existing regulations governing Oireachtas travel allowances to enable Deputies or Senators residing within ten miles of Leinster House to claim daily travel payments for attendance on "non-sitting" days. This will bring them into line in this respect with other Members.

Finally, section 13 provides for a short title, collective citation and commencement.

What I want to emphasise about these provisions in relation to secretarial assistance is that they comprise, primarily, a framework designed to ensure that they put the provision of a service, which it is fair to say is much appreciated by Members and on which we all acknowledge our dependence, beyond the reach of legal challenge based on non-compliance with Article 15.15 of the Constitution. For the first time, we are putting secretarial assistance firmly on a legislative base. Far from giving existing staff cause for alarm, these provisions ensure that the employment of this group, the unsung champions of the workings of our democracy, is assured so that their position cannot be suddenly jeopardised as a by-product of malicious or imprudent litigation. It is intended also to underline the reality of the employer/employee relationship and remove any ambiguity which gave rise to confusion and difficulty, and it has to be said that confusion and difficulty have arisen, even in the case at the Labour Court.

I want to stress also the framework nature of the provisions of this Bill because, as with the formal but non-statutory scheme we operated in the past, it leaves scope for initiatives to be taken by members of the parties to meet the concerns of existing staff. Some such concerns have been clearly and cogently expressed to me and to other Whips and, through us, to the Minister for Finance. They have also been brought formally to the attention of officials of the Department of Finance. I and my fellow Whips have placed on record our anxiety to allay these fears and to utilise such scope as is provided by the minimally prescriptive sections 7 to 10 of the Bill once the fundamental requirements of the Constitution have been met. We have said time and time again — and I reiterate it for the record — that we have agreed to explore with them and their representatives possible solutions to their difficulties and perceived difficulties.

There have been fears expressed outside this Chamber that the enactment of this Bill would be followed by sudden and dramatic action affecting the existing corps of secretarial staff. This Bill, like others, specifies that its provisions will come into effect on days and dates determined by ministerial order. There is no question of any such order being rushed through the House to give instant effect to these provisions. That is further underlined by the fact that we decided, following discussion on the Order of Business this morning, that we would take Second Stage only today. It was never intended that the Bill would be pushed through the House and the orders signed. A categoric assurance to that effect was given by me and the Minister for Finance and, I thought, accepted by the Whips. I reiterate that the provisions of these sections of the Bill will not come into effect until negotiations have taken place.

I have made it clear to my fellow Whips, and it has been explained directly to representatives of the staff concerned, that the interval between the enactment of this Bill and the making of any orders provides an opportunity for all of us to get together to find a satisfactory and acceptable solution to any problems perceived. In effect we can do that in the interval between Second and Committee Stages.

When it became obvious that this Bill was coming before the House, the Whips discussed it among themselves. We agreed that we would collectively go to the Minister for Finance and meet the unions. We met the unions, heard their views and conveyed those to the Minister for Finance. I conveyed back to the unions the position of the Minister for Finance on this matter. I am concerned that a number of statements were made that there had been no negotiations or consultations. I underline the fact that there were such consultations and thank the other Whips for their assistance in this matter. I assure all secretaries, particularly those of my own party, that full consultations will take place. I am sure I speak for the other Whips and they will do the same on behalf of their secretaries.

I want to conclude by emphasising that these changes do not threaten anybody. The current arrangements are ambiguous, unwieldy and, quite possibly, unconstitutional. Anybody who was a Whip after a general election will know what I am talking about. Legislative change is essential. It is my belief that the provisions of this Bill represent a fair and reasonable balance between, on the one hand, the need to cater for the interests of existing secretarial assistants and, on the other, the necessity of bringing the arrangements into line with the requirements of the Constitution and of efficient administrative practice.

Some people alleged that we are trying to sneak this Bill through. Before the provisions of this Bill will be implemented each one of the Whips will have to consult widely with the members of their own parties. It will be absolutely necessary to do so since its provisions affect not only our secretarial assistants but every Member of the House. There is no way that such a Bill could be passed without consultation. I must re-emphasise that fact.

I commend the Bill to the House for approval.

The right decision was taken in the House this morning on the Order of Business to agree to deal only with Second Stage of this Bill today.

This Bill is an important one in its own right, dealing with the rights of Members of the House, with the facilities available to them and to committees of the House and with the rights of secretarial assistants.

It is important that one should express the thanks of all Members, past and present, for the very valuable work carried out by secretarial assistants in Leinster House over the years. Having entered this House for the first time in 1975, I know from experience that the Fine Gael Party then had three secretarial assistants to deal with all the queries and responsibilities of its members. In those days the technology available was very antiquated and conditions extremely poor but people did the best they could to serve democracy to the greatest extent possible.

It is important that our thanks be recorded to the staff, secretarial assistants past and present. The right thing has been done in that rushed legislation always leads to mistrust and confusion. The intervening period between the conclusion of Second Stage and the taking of Committee and Remaining Stages will allow for discussion, debate, negotiation and clarification between the Whips, parties, Deputies and secretarial assistants about what is contained in the Bill. An endless list of queries has to be answered and dealt with.

The Government Whip is genuine in his attempts to improve facilities both for Members of the House and in respect of facilities for committees, parties and secretarial assistants. I hope his words come true so that when this Bill is enacted there will be absolute clarity concerning the continuous employment aspect and the protection of seniority gained over the years in respect of the sections dealing with secretarial assistants.

Section 2 deals with claims and payments made to the chairmen and members of the various committees. I note there are different rates for different committees. The committee system set up this year gives priority to the legislative committees of the Dáil. I would have thought the Committee of Public Accounts, one of the longest established committees of Dáil Éireann, would rate on equal priority with any legislative committee because it has a fundamentally important role to carry out. I can understand the difference between some of the committees. The Fine Gael Party supports the committee system and the granting of the best level of facilities and resources to the committees that can be made available.

Section 3 deals with an allowance in respect of the Leader of the House in Seanad Éireann. I would have thought it would be appropriate to make an allowance to the Leader of the Opposition in the Seanad as that person must be here on all occasions. Provision should be made in section 3 or in another section, for the Leas-Chathaoirleach, an office holder, whose position is not reflected either by way of allowance or privilege. For example, when the Office of Leas-Chathaoirleach in the Seanad was set up in 1938 the allowance was £750 as opposed to £1,000 for the Cathaoirleach. In 1993 the rate is £7,000 for the Leas-Chathaoirleach and £14,000 for the Chathaoirleach. There are other differences in respect of the position of Leas-Chathaoirleach which are not reflected in the Bill which perhaps could be included in the relevant section.

This Bill has a distinct bearing on the nature and work of political representatives of all parties in the House. If the effect of the Bill is to transfer responsibility as an employer from the party to the Deputy, that is a fundamental change in the way politics will work from a representational and a party point of view. The general position at election time is that the Fine Gael Party would require its secretarial staff to work in headquarters on an irregular basis. This means that secretaries employed directly by Deputies might not feel required to do such work, when the collective advantage of cases being made for facilities from a party point of view would be lost. In our case if one were to have 45 individual employers as against a corporate employer, comprised of 45, obviously that would detract from the strength of the case one could make to the Government of the day in respect of facilities.

We employ an additional secretary in the Whip's office to deal with non-constituency work, a secretary in the press office, a supplementary secretary to the parliamentary party who is based in the Dáil, a supplementary secretary based in the Seanad, three extra staff in the Leader's office — two dealing with constituency work and one dealing with all other work — a printer and an administrator.

Some 46 Fine Gael staff are based in Leinster House and 15 secretaries are based in constituencies. There are different criteria in respect of employment between the constituency secretaries and those employed in the Dáil. Of the 46 staff employed by Fine Gael eight are paid at administrative assistant grade— that is executive officer level — five of whom are supervisors, and three at the administrative grade of higher executive officer and the remaining staff are on the secretarial assistants grade. The administrative assistants, who are supervisors, have extra duties imposed on them of checking the day-to-day attendance of their secretarial assistants, keeping records of annual leave, sick leave, time-keeping and so on. All these duties are onerous and time-consuming. The administrator is appointed to deal with time-keeping, sick leave, annual leave, maternity allowances and so on.

A contractual agreement in the House is signed by all secretaries. The terms of that contract mean they have signed away their working rights. Those contracts stipulate that they are employed only on an interim basis until legislation is put on a statutory basis. This gives rise to fear, mistrust and confusion in the minds of a great number of secretaries concerning their future, their positions and their continuation in employment. For that reason the timescale between the completion of Second Stage and taking of Committee and remaining Stages is of importance.

Obviously, if the committee system is to work it must have resources. I support the payment of an allowance to the chairmen. In the next Dáil session I hope the committee system and the committee week will operate as intended and that the committees will continue with their work, in terms of their legislative duties, until progress is made with whatever legislation is being dealt with. It is important that it should not be disrupted as has happened previously. It was not my understanding that committees would be forced to meet while the Dáil was in plenary session. This is not my understanding of what committee week was primarily designed for. I hope it will work more efficiently and that the chairmen, whenever they get the allowance, will be enabled to have further resources, more time and commitment for dealing with their legislative responsibilities.

In respect of staff being put on individual contracts for particular Deputies, questions must be asked about what happens to previous contracts. What happens to seniority and pension rights gained by secretarial assistants down the years? There is confusion on these issues and coming up to Christmas this is a cause of great anxiety for many secretarial assistants. We must ask what will happen in the event of the retirement or death of a sitting Deputy? Will a secretarial assistant automatically lose her job? Can this be dealt with in legislation? In existing legislation is there built-in protection for persons in this category? What is the relationship between these events and unfair dismissal? Will the redundancy Acts apply and will redundancy payments be made?

After the last election a number of secretarial assistants were offered a very generous redundancy package and some took it and left. There are different interpretations of why people availed of the package, some wanted to leave but other very good secretaries had to leave. It is important that some provision to deal with similar events should be built into the legislation.

If the Deputy is to be the employer who determines the rate of pay and conditions of employment of the secretarial assistant, it is imperative that some form of common contract with minimum conditions be drawn up. Otherwise, it is obvious that there could be great disparities in the pay and conditions of secretarial assistants. If a secretarial allowance is to be paid to the Deputies there must be a guarantee that secretarial assistants will be paid their entitlements in full. I am sure the Minister is aware that very few Deputies want to take on the paper work involved in employing somebody. I employ one person on a weekly basis and the amount of formfilling for the Revenue Commissioners is incredible. Deputies have more than enough to do in their work than to be involved in this. Obviously, the parties will have to employ somebody to deal with the payroll.

I understand also that there will be a rebalancing of secretarial services to Senators. There is one secretarial assistant for every three Senators but under the terms of the Bill there will be one secretarial assistant for every two Senators and this will be of advantage to the Fine Gael Party. A number of Senators contend that the allowance should be paid to them so that they could hire either part-time secretarial assistants in the constituency or make other arrangements. Senators have vocational obligations in their constituency in the country.

The parties employ other staff such as printers and administrative staff in the Whips office, and extra staff when required. What will happen to such staff? If there is to be change is this to come about through the process of natural wastage or new contracts of employment once the legislation is enacted — in other words will the existing contracts that staff have entered into be dismissed in terms of length of service and seniority and the protection afforded to persons in continuous employment? It is proposed in the Bill that the Deputy will not be responsible for paying the salary of a person on maternity leave. At present, a person on maternity leave receives her full salary and returns the maternity allowance to the Department. Under the terms of the Bill the Deputy, as the employer, will not be bound to pay full salary to staff on maternity leave and the secretary will be at the loss of 30 per cent of her salary when in receipt of the maternity allowance. That amounts to punishment for availing of maternity leave. The payment of salary while on maternity leave should be safeguarded so that nobody will be worse off when the legislation is implemented. We should consider paying secretaries weekly instead of monthly as proposed in the Bill.

Over the years people acquired rights due to their continuity of service and it would be worthwhile considering a deal, similar to the Talbot deal of the early eighties where manual workers and secretarial staff — in our case it would be only secretarial staff — were subsumed into the public service at a level commensurate with their experience by Order on the direction of the then Taoiseach if they failed to find a job six months after the closure of that firm.

Every secretarial assistant will be subject to this legislation because all present Deputies will not be here in 20 years time, some will retire, some will be defeated and some will pass away. Secretarial assistants in their twenties and thirties will be subject to this Bill. Protection, subject to certain conditions, such as was given to the Talbot workers should be built into the legislation.

The new arrangements are open to abuse. For instance, a Deputy could decide that this Dáil term was to be his or her last, dispense with the secretary and employ a person on a much lower salary in the constituency and keep the remainder of the allowance. I would not like to see that happening.

I was glad to hear the Minister say that this was not an attempt to abolish the rights of secretarial assistants who have served this House well. We need to give proof of that commitment in the Bill. A proper redundancy scheme may be agreed in the negotiations. Will Deputies who employ secretarial assistants at executive officer or higher executive officer level be paid a higher allowance to reflect this?

The Bill deals also with the payment of moneys to parliamentary groups. I agree with these provisions as they are fundamental to the way we do our business. I have had limited opportunities to observe the facilities available to parliamentarians in other jurisdictions and from what I have seen the facilities and services available to assist Deputies in their role as legislators leave a great deal to be desired. I know the Chief Whip has plans to introduce some improvements in this regard. It is important that a party like ours, with 45 Deputies, the main Opposition party, should have adequate research and secretarial assistance. It is unfair that an elected representative does not have the back-up facilities to effectively compete with the resources available to the Government. That is very important and I hope that the parliamentary parties involved will use the money wisely. I am pleased that the Bill proposes to make moneys available towards the provision of facilities for smaller groups. The sum proposed is obviously not enough. It is a matter for negotiation and the Minister for Finance might accede to our proposals.

I welcome section 12 which repeals the restriction on Dublin Deputies living inside of a ten mile radius of Leinster House. This has been a bone of contention with Dublin Deputies for a number of years. They are entitled to the minimum day allowance.

The right decision has been taken to put off the Committee and remaining Stages of this Bill until the confusion has been dispelled and the mistrust and lack of understanding has been cleared up in relation to the protection of the rights of secretarial assistants. Nobody should be under any illusions that this is not an attempt by the Government to unilaterally change the conditions of employment of those working in the Houses of the Oireachtas. Upon further discussion within the groups and by the Deputies further questions will have to be answered with regard to moneys paid to parliamentary groups, the kind of research that might be available to them. the uses to which it can be put and so on.

When dealing with the allowances for the Leader of the Seanad, the Leader of the Opposition in the Seanad should be borne in mind. I refer particularly to the Leas-Chathaoirleach of the Seanad who is not accorded the level of privilege commensurate with his office.

I tried to get a copy of the judgment of Mr. Justice Keane in the case referred to by the Minister but it is not available yet. We would be interested to see how unconstitutional or illegal is the present system. Those employed in private business, subject to the climate of the day, can find themselves without jobs or prospects upon the closure of a plant. At least in the Houses of the Oireachtas the Legislature now has the opportunity to make this provision entirely legal and to see to it that the group working for Deputies and Senators in the House is happy and contented, in the knowledge that their conditions of employment are as good as we can make them. In return that will ensure that there is a genuine commitment to carrying out their responsibilities.

A number of recommendations will be made on Committee Stage on foot of the discussions that are taking place. I hope that when the Bill is passed the rights of secretarial assistants will be protected and will be seen to be protected. We can then get on with dealing with the enormous problems that confront our country.

This Bill was published yesterday and until the Opposition voiced objections this morning on the Order of Business it was proposed that it would pass all Stages today. Even in the case of minor legislation such haste in passing all Stages should be a cause for parliamentary concern. The main thrust of this Bill, apart from giving allowances to the chairmen of committees, is to establish a scheme which fundamentally alters the status and terms and conditions of employment of Dáil secretaries. It might have been more appropriate to have a Dáil secretaries Bill and the allowances to Members dealt with separately. It is a discourtesy to Dáil secretaries to include them as part of a package to do with the allowances to Members.

I note that the chairperson of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights will get a salary. It might have been appropriate for that committee to consider the proposed scheme. Has the Minister for Equality and Law Reform had an opportunity to look at this legislation which has equality implications, because sections 7 and 8 are women's issues as only one man is employed as a secretary in the House?

The Bill is presented in the context of a need to regularise the position since the Ann Halliday case and that is not disputed but it should not have been introduced hastily. I know there have been negotiations with the union and that we have had two or three Whips meetings discussing various aspects of it, but the Bill was only published yesterday. It is enabling legislation which does not set down the terms or what the new scheme will mean for our secretaries. It is discourteous to the women working in this House for Deputies and Senators, whatever about the cosiness of the Whips meetings and the robust way in which the Minister for Finance is approaching this issue. Perhaps the Minister has had long experience in dealing with this matter which has given rise to problems over the years. I am new to the problem and come with a fresh approach. This is an opportunity to review how we pay Dáil secretaries.

The scheme proposes to incorporate the present pay scales and to take the Minister for Finance out of the picture. We can cut the link between the Dáil secretaries and the Minister for Finance but it is unfair to cast the Dáil secretaries into a type of limbo where nothing is positively agreed. That is what we are concerned about this morning. Some of the worries are minor such as concern about the VHI group scheme, seniority, or if a Deputy will not stand again or does not have a hope of being re-elected.

What future is there for that Dáil secretary and what motivation will she be able to put into her work? How can she plan for her future? Many of our Dáil secretaries are young women, some are middle aged and all have different responsibilities, but they are badly paid. The pay scale for secretaries starts at £146 a week gross to a top level of £312 gross. That means there are women working in this House earning £128 per week after tax. Those are 19 and 20 year old women, skilled Dáil secretaries carrying out work which is executive in nature and putting up with Deputies at their worst. Their pay scales need to be examined. The Joint Oireachtas Committee on Women's Rights commissioned hundreds of reports about women at work, women in the Civil Service, women in the public service and so on. Any graph of women in the public service or the Civil Service will be pear shaped, with women in the bottom grades.

I had a gender audit carried out in Dublin Corporation, the results of which showed there were only nine women in the top five grades. The main bunching of ghettoisation of women was in the lower two grades. The clerical administrative grades of Dublin Corporation comprise 63 per cent women as opposed to only nine women in the top five grades. That type of immobility of women in the workforce is unacceptable.

I am not saying Dáil Deputies do not rate their secretaries properly, but this legislation presents an opportunity for us to examine those grades and their conditions. We do not have any child care facilities in this House. Apart from the requirements of Dáil Deputies in that regard, our secretaries do not have any child care facilities or support services. An effort was made recently to set up a crèche in the Dáil, but there was a reluctance to change. Statements were made about there not being a spare inch in this House that could be made into a crèche. The suggestion had to be diluted to a family room, whatever that means, and it is not being given priority.

This legislation provides us with an opportunity to address many issues. Sections 7 and 8 are the principal items of contention in the legislation. Section 2 provides for the payment of allowances to chairmen of Oireachtas committees and that is appropriate. The Minister stated the Dáil committees have provided a fundamental change in the way the House has conducted its business since the foundation of the State. The reform has been worthwhile because the committee system appears to be working well and the chairmen should be paid.

I pointed out already to the Minister of State the difficulties faced by small parties in ensuring we have members present at all committees. As our party has only ten members it is difficult to attend committees at all times and without research facilities it is difficult to participate fully in Committee Stage debates. Every member of my party is a spokesperson on some matter and some of us hold two portfolios. I am not looking for sympathy, just fair play. Ministers have programme managers, advisers and the officials of their Departments to assist them. There is an imbalance in terms of resources and Opposition spokespersons are pitched against well resourced Ministers in the manner of David and Goliath. It is difficult to study legislation and prepare amendments for Committee Stage when we do not have the resources to do so. That puts a great deal of strain on members of Opposition parties. If the system is to work well, there must be a balance in the capacity of both sides to be adversarial and consider legislation properly.

Dáil Deputies are reluctant to become employers and that is reflected throughout the entire country. That is why there are 300,000 people out of work. At present, employing a person is similar to getting married. There are many long term implications associated with being an employer and much tedium associated with employing even one person. I employ a full-time childcare worker and I was amazed at the amount of tedium involved in employing that person. It is understandable, therefore, that Deputies shirk away from yet another onerous responsibility. Under the new scheme each party should have a payroll clerk or some such person to deal with the onerous responsibilities associated with personnel matters and payroll. Prior to agreeing this scheme a draft standard form of contract should be negotiated, and all secretaries should be happy with it. Vagueness creates fear and distrust, which would have been fuelled by a limbo status if the Bill had passed all Stages before Christmas. Secretaries would have gone home for Christmas with legitimate fears about their future employment conditions.

It is interesting to note the level of distrust which has developed through the years between secretaries and the Department of Finance. Secretaries do not trust the Minister of State in what he says. That is regrettable. If he said that no staff member will fare worse following the establishment of the scheme and that we are going in batting for our Dáil secretaries, I would believe him. However, the distrust which has developed over the years is an indictment of the manner in which our Dáil secretaries have been treated in the past. I have been a Member of the Dáil for only a short time, but I am aware of that distrust. The secretaries believe they are being sold a pup. It is regrettable that staff relations have evolved to the state where a requirement to introduce a new scheme should result in such a level of concern and distrust, and I believe militant distrust on behalf of the union.

I understand the union will resist change and want to protect the status quo. Any change involves risk, but what about those women who are not members of a union? They have not been contacted by the union and do not know what the scheme will involve for them. They do not know if they will continue to be paid on a weekly basis. Because our Dáil secretaries are low paid workers, I am ashamed to say, they must be paid weekly. They have immediate outgoings and could not manage if they were paid monthly. Those issues should be addressed under this legislation which presents us with an opportunity to put in place a realistic and sympathetic scheme which will respect the girls who work with us.

Those secretaries are concerned also about their pension entitlements and service accumulation and do not know if those entitlements will be protected. That is promised but there is nothing stitched into the legislation in that regard. I do not blame them for being concerned. If I were in their position I would want to know my future status. I would not be happy to go home for Christmas not knowing the type of contract that would be presented to me when I returned. Those women will definitely lose out on their maternity entitlements in that they will receive only 70 per cent of their previous year's income in allowance. That is a definite encroachment on their previous benefits which must be sorted out.

The Interpretation (Amendment) Bill, which is major legislation, was debated here with the Minister for Equality and Law Reform. That legislation deals with gender proofing in the drafting of legislation which is important, but this is a much more important equality issue.

I would not call it major legislation.

It was with tongue in cheek I said that. The Minister for Equality and Law Reform should have dealt with this issue today instead of dealing with the Interpretation Bill. As I said, the Joint Committee on Women's Rights should also consider this scheme. This is an in house matter which relates to the issue of equality and instead of preaching to industry and agencies on the need to take positive action to ensure equal opportunities for women in the workforce we should get it right. We are blithely passing legislation under which, inter alia, the terms of employment and contracts of our secretaries will be changed.

This Bill has an attitude problem. The fact that the contracts of Dáil secretaries are being linked with the allowances payable to Members indicates that a bad attitude is adopted when it comes to the question of how we should deal with our staff. This issue should be dealt with separately.

Our Dáil secretaries, like Dáil Deputies have no security. At the end of four years, depending on the electorate, I might be back in my kitchen. However, my Dáil secretary may be even more concerned than me about that possibility; because, like all Dáil secretaries, she has responsibilities. Many of them are lone parents and may not have another source of income.

Dáil secretaries have accepted that, no more than Deputies, they cannot expect security of tenure but they should be compensated for this in their salary. They do not have any of the perks, privileges or power which Deputies have. There is a need to review the salary scales and compensate them for the risk that they take — that in four years' time they may not have a job if a Deputy loses his or her seat. These issues have to be addressed.

It can be stressful working for Front Bench members of the Opposition or a Whip. Those Dáil secretaries work very hard even though they are on low pay. I would like to see a change in this regard. I would be willing to take part in negotiations with the Department of Finance to improve the salary scales.

If a Deputy is very busy in the House the secretary can be the major link with constituents. In this regard they deal with queries and make representations to Ministers. While they do all the running they get none of the credit. Indeed, secretaries can contribute to the success or failure of a Deputy at an election. We owe them a lot and in agreeing to take only Second Stage today we are doing them the courtesy of allowing them time to enter into negotiations during the recess and into the New Year. If the Minister for Finance is to cut the cord it will be necessary to make and agree to formal arrangements.

In his response the Minister of State might indicate the up-to date position in the negotiations with the union. I hope we will not have an industrial dispute. There are dangers in pushing Bills through just before Christmas. I do not know if anyone remembers the legislation dealing with the rod licence but it was rushed through in Christmas week. That was a bad omen.

Without opposition.

This could have been tricky legislation and I am glad that the Taoiseach and the Minister agreed that we should take only Second Stage today to defuse the situation, given that people are angry.

I call on Deputy Rabbitte and he has 30 minutes.

Normally this would be no trouble to me but I was working for my constituents until early this morning——

Is the Deputy running out of steam?

I am obliged for the support of my colleagues, the trade unionists sitting behind me.

We will allow the Deputy to finish after 10 p.m.

I welcome the decision of the Government to take only Second Stage of this Bill today to give the people directly affected an opportunity to examine the detail of what the Minister of State has said today. The secretaries employed by the House will not examine in detail the contributions made by the Opposition Whips, rather they will seize the contribution made by the Minister of State.

The Minister of State may think that some of the information that he communicated today has been relayed accurately to the women affected but this has not happened. I accept what he has said about the discussions that have taken place during the past few weeks with the Whips, that a meeting was arranged with the trade union concerned and, subsequently, with the Minister for Finance. The Government Whip relayed to the Minister the outcome of that meeting with the trade union. All this did happen. It is not accurate to say that there have been no consultations, but it is accurate to say that adequate consultations have not taken place. Let me explain the reason I say this.

On two occasions in the House the Taoiseach mentioned that there was agreement between the Whips. This was unhelpful. I am delighted, like every other Member, with the apparent success of the Taoiseach yesterday and I sincerely hope that it evokes the response it deserves, but in coming into the House to say that there was agreement between the Whips he was doing us an injustice and threatening to fracture the good working relationship that exists between the Whips. We did not see the Bill until yesterday. All of us have been concerned and nervous about the implications of what was proposed, which arose, admittedly, from a court action. It was clear at all stages that it was the people directly affected who would condition the response of the Opposition parties.

The leader of my party, Deputy De Rossa, raised this issue each day this week. Every time the Government Whip presents the Opposition Whips with complex and extensive legislation and it is deemed when we leave the room that we have agreed to take a particular measure when that was not the intention, it underlines the relationship which has been developed. The Government Whip has been extraordinarily successful in seducing the Opposition Whips to go along with measures which, if we were faced by a less——

Engaging.

——amicable, less engaging Government Whip, might not be the case. When I was a trade union official I disliked the nice guy personnel managers because one could not do business with them as well as one could with the other kind. This Government Whip fits into the nice guy category and therefore makes the job of the Opposition Whips more difficult. However, I do not think advantage should be taken of us in the manner that was suggested this morning.

Let us come to the serious business of this Bill. I have had representations from the grade affected from all of the parties in the House with, I think, the exception of my colleagues in the Labour Party. I have been approached on a confidential basis by secretaries from Fianna Fáil, the Progressive Democrats, Fine Gael and my own party and I have listed on one page, in a manner that would recommend itself to the Taoiseach, questions that they have put to me. The Minister may well say that they have answered them, that they have answered some of them or that we know the answer to them. I may well know the answers to some of them. The important point is that the secretaries do not know the answers.

Perception and communication are very important in industrial relations. We have left ourselves open to the charge of being seen to publish, two to three days before the Christmas recess, and put through the House in 24 hours, all Stages of a Bill which alters fundamentally the system that has obtained up to now. It may not be a very good system, but it is the one that has obtained since Deputies were first allocated secretarial assistance.

We propose a measure that fundamentally alters that system and we allow for minimum consultation. We are asking them to go forward on the word of the Whips or, most important, on the word of the Government Whip, which is the only word that matters at the end of the day. I do not question the assurance given in the House by the Government Whip. However, it is not very important what I do. There are many women, especially women, out there who have given long, good and valued service to this institution and to individual Deputies here who do question it and are fearful about what it means, and that it is not enshrined in the Bill. What is the value of the word of a Government Whip who might pass on — I think it is very unlikely in the case of this Government Whip——

He might move up a bit.

He very well may.

He could become a chairman.

He could become a chairman and as a result of the Bill, it would be a not unmeritorious profession to pursue. The secretaries accept that as a result of the court challenge the system must change. If one accepts the peculiar and unique nature of the job of a Member of this House, it may very well be that a contract system is the best arrangement; but, like every other contract, it depends on the terms of the contract.

I understand the secretaries are objecting to a contract system and that the fundamental principle of the Minister and the Minister for Finance is that it is not feasible or practicable for us to confer on the secretaries of Members of this House rights superior to those enjoyed by Members of the House themselves. In other words, we, unfortunately, do not have permanency of employment. A large number of Deputies do lose their seats in this House at every general election. That is a certainty that will continue and, in terms of democracy, I presume it is desirable that it should continue. If we accept that it is not practicable to confer superior rights on secretaries, we must devise an imaginative system that is consistent with the law in so far as it has now been defined. I thank the Labour Party for their co-operation. I think that between us we can combine with the other Opposition parties to ensure that we get a good system out of this for the women who work for the House.

And the Government.

Deputy Kenny referred to Justice Keane's judgment. Like him, I would like to see the precise judgment, which I have not yet seen. What I am saying about the change in the system being inevitable is conditional on that. However, I think it is accepted that a change is inevitable, that a contract system is probably the best and that it depends on the terms of the contract.

Here is the check-list of questions that I scribbled as a result of talking to the secretaries: will there be continuity of employment, or will staff be regarded as having left the Oireachtas on one day and started for a TD or a party the next day? This is important in regard to protective legislation, the Unfair Dismissals Act, etc. Will a secretary be entitled to retain her job, subject to the satisfactory carrying out of her functions, for as long as the TD holds a seat, or will the term of employment be only for the lifetime of the Dáil? In other words, will a secretary have to re-apply for the job after each election, assuming her Deputy is successful? This, again, is important in terms of the protective legislation.

Will there be a common contract for all staff with a common set of conditions, or will TDs' parties be able to set different conditions for different staff? Will the same holiday conditions, hours, sick pay apply as at present? Will staff who currently work in Leinster House be able to be compelled to work in constituency offices? Will staff automatically receive any public sector pay increase or will these have to be negotiated individually? Will TDs be obliged to pay over to the secretary the full allowance to them for this purpose? Will secretaries' pension entitlements be preserved? Will they be paid overtime? Will there be a limit to paid overtime? Will there be a limit to the hours staff can be asked to work overtime? Who will decide if overtime should be paid?

What replacement provision will there be for staff who are on sick leave either on a short term or a long term basis? Can staff be transferred from one TD to another without their consent? Will there be any possibility of promotion to a higher grade after a period of service? If a staff member has a complaint about a TD — unreasonable treatment, sexual or other harassment — whom should that be addressed to? If there is a dispute whom will the union negotiate with — the individual TD or the party Whip? What about their VHI entitlements? Can a secretary be sacked on a whim? This latter point is probably the source of much of the reaction we have seen in the last two or three days. There is a belief on the part of some secretaries that they can indeed and may very well be sacked on a whim.

I absolutely concur with what has been said in the debate already that in the main we get exceptional service from the women — and they are predominantly or exclusively women — who service the Members of this House. It is a skilled job nowadays. They must be able to operate the latest technology and be quasi social workers as well as being personal assistants to Deputies. They must have a knowledge of social welfare legislation, all of the things that many of our secretaries know better than we do and can perform more efficiently than we can.

I am not in a position to say that the 166 secretaries working for the Members of this House are all in that category and I do not want to be dragged into that argument, but in my experience, generally speaking, the secretaries perform above and beyond the call of duty. There is no doubt about that. Secretaries employed in other places in which I worked would not put up with a great deal of what those secretaries are expected to put up with. Their jobs are insecure and not permanent and involve a high level of stress from time to time. The fact that they may be dismissed at a whim is part of what is behind the reaction we have seen in recent days.

Deputy Kenny referred to his hope that there would be no abuse of the system. I have not had an opportunity to consider the detail of the legislation in that regard. Will it be permissible for different TDs to apply whatever new system is implemented differently throughout the House? Will I be able to sack my secretary and employ two "yellow pack" temporaries to replace her, one in my constituency and one here to retain my privileges?

Under the FÁS scheme.

Absolutely. Will that be acceptable? The implications of the new system have not been properly conveyed to the secretaries. Under the new system some secretaries may fare better. Would it be possible for a Deputy, who may be so disposed as to pocket money, not to pass on additional money to his secretary? A common contract needs to be agreed between the Whips and applied across the House to cover this area otherwise the new system will further fuel the discontent.

There is a different category of staff who have served in this House for a long time and who, despite their status or lack of it, they have come to believe that because they have been here for so long they are permanent in the psychological sense of that word. They are concerned as to where they stand, what minimal conditions they have chalked up and how those conditions can be preserved.

A fundamental point relating to the conditions enjoyed by women who work as secretaries here has been referred to. The union has not managed to get its act together on behalf of the secretaries. I am also a member of the union that represents those secretaries. Union representation here on a broad basis is a fairly recent phenomenon. It is not acceptable that women, who are expected to perform a multidisciplinary role for Deputies, are subject to the level of pay scales to which Deputy O'Donnell referred, which range from £146 per week to a maximum of £312 per week. That is not good enough.

I do not want to draw comparisons between that salary scale and other sections of the Bill. I accept that chairpersons of committees ought to be paid. I will speak in regard to the quantum of that salary scale on Committee Stage. We are laying ourselves open to the perception that we manage to provide a stipend for chairmen of committees that exceeds the salary paid to many women secretaries here.

For a full week's work.

As their entire week's pay. That is not fair or reasonable or proper. We must get together to ensure that the union is facilitated in introducing some appropriate remuneration for those secretaries. It is not acceptable that the take home pay of many of those secretaries who have families may be £130 per week. Regardless of whether they have families that figure represents an inadequate level of pay. Those secretaries' pay scale is at the heart of the distrust referred to.

I do not decry the fact that this Government and its immediate predecessor has improved the conditions of Members of this House and our ability to do our jobs. The secretaries are familiar with this position. There has been no commensurate improvement in their positions. I accept the argument that in a modern democracy the requirements of being a parliamentarian are difficult and complex and if we are to perform our jobs adequately we need a back-up service which the Government has moved to put in place. The women secretaries should not be allowed to become the forgotten support system that allows the system to function reasonably well.

Deputy Kenny and the Minister referred to the provision under section 9 to provide some element of back-up service for the committee system. Specific reference has been made to the fact that my party and the Technical Group will benefit from that provision. I appreciate that will be the case but it represents only a modest step forward. Deputy O'Donnell referred to the difficulties under which the Opposition tried to compete with the panoply of the Civil Service back-up, the employment of outside persons as programme managers and that we must compete with that back-up service with meagre resources and that small parties are disadvantaged in this regard. My party does not receive a Leader's allowance because of an anachronistic Standing Order that sets the size of a parliamentary group at seven Deputies. We get no back-up. It is proposed that a payment will be made available to my party that in total will be less than the allowance for the chairman of one of the committees. Deputy Kenny indicated that payment may be open to negotiation. With due rspect to Deputy Kenny, if the Government Whip were to indicate that such renegotiation is proposed that would carry more weight with me. We are determined to work the committee system in this House, including the reforms introduced by the Minister. How can we employ any type of worthwhile back-up for the processing of legislation on the basis of the very modest stipend that is being rumoured under this section?

I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this position. That stipend is not feasible or practical. The Executive administers this House. The Government makes the decision. The Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Dempsey, has beaten his chest with some justification about the reforms he introduced and which had been long sought by the Leader of Deputy Kenny's party and others in this House. I do not see how it can be expected in this David and Goliath struggle to which Deputy O'Donnell referred, that we can make a contribution if there is no regard for the rights of independent Deputies or small parties.

The position changes. In the previous Parliament the Progressive Democrats had six Deputies and the party to which I belong had seven Deputies and managed to qualify as a parliamentary group. In this Parliament the position is reversed, the Progressive Democrats qualify as a parliamentary group but our party do not. The Green Party is represented in this Parliament and it was represented in the previous Parliament. It brings a unique and different dimension to Irish politics and it has made an impact on all parties in this House, although they may not wish to publicly admit it, in terms of policies on the environment and so on. If the new system is to work that is an area that must be seriously considered.

It is a matter for the Government as to whether it favours a rewards system. We do not have a system of peerages as exists in the House of Commons. If we wish to elevate a number of worthy Deputies who cannot become Ministers — there are only 30 posts available — as a reward for their diligence in making the committee system work I have no objection, but there ought to be some system of proportion and some acknowledgement of the rights of the Opposition in the matter. I am sure the Minister will say that we must have regard to proportionality and to the democratic system, and I accept that, but there must be a floor in this regard. For a rumoured £10,000 one would not employ a person who would make a significant input. There ought to be strings attached in that it ought to be necessary to prove that the group or party concerned has employed a person for the purpose intended in the legislation, to provide back up to the committees.

I do not envisage anybody calling a vote at the conclusion of Second Stage. The welter of information contained in the Minister's speech and the comments of the Opposition, in so far as they are considered to be of any value, will no doubt be closely examined by the union and by the Members affected. Their fears should be assuaged in terms of, for example, the check list I read out. The information given by the Minister this morning will be very useful to the union in helping it to form a view on these matters, provided they accept that the system must change.

The question of maternity leave has been raised. As all the people involved are women and since it is women who have babies it is reasonable to expect that the issue of maternity leave will arise. I would like the Minister to respond to the question as to whether we, as Whips, can agree a common contract. I accept that there is a need for flexibility in this area but there ought to be some common system. I hope we can resolve this matter so that we are in a position to enact legislation that will improve the conditions of these women rather than disimprove them.

I will make a short contribution because I would like to share time with my colleague, Deputy Bell.

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Two solid men.

Mr. Kenny

Yes, and our contributions will be equally solid.

By next June the Deputy will have slimmed down.

In spite of all his constituency work, Deputy Rabbitte has lost none of his skills as an advocate and I hope the Minister will respond to his measured contribution. The 12 questions posed by him were very much to the point and very apposite.

If the present arrangements for the employment of TDs' secretaries are unconstitutional, I would like to hear why they are so and what flaws exist in the system. The Labour Party wants fair play for TDs' secretaries. We should not rush this legislation; there should be careful consultation and consideration of the matter. The legislation has provoked anxiety among TDs' secretaries who believe there is an element of privatisation involved. We should learn from the way other countries deal with this matter and examine their system of employment of secretaries to Members of parliament. We would benefit from so doing in that we would get a wider picture of what is involved. Recently I studied some of the working arrangements in the House of Commons. I am no authority on this matter but I learned that there is a pool of secretaries available to Members of Parliament there.

I have had an office in the centre of Limerick city since I was elected to the Dáil in 1981. As it is next door to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, 200 yards from the local employment exchange and 50 yards from the headquarters of the Mid-Western Health Board, a constant stream of people come to see me six days a week. My secretary would need the skills of Kissinger, the patience of Job and the stamina of a plough horse to deal with all the work involved.

The relationship between a secretary and a TD is unique. There must be team work and people must get on well together. The secretary must be versatile, be able to interpret the mood and mind of the TD and to constantly meet deadlines. Politicians, by their nature, are very often vain, impatient and concerned with their profile and image. They are not the easiest people in the world to work with. As Deputy Rabbitte said, both the TD and secretary are vulnerable as very often 25 per cent of the TDs are not re-elected. These circumstances do not obtain in any other job. Essentially we depend on the electorate for our survival.

We must carefully consider this legislation. Both Deputy Bell and I have a trade union background and we are not going to turn our backs on our secretaries as that would be foreign to what we believe in. Our party was founded by the two greatest trade unionists, James Connolly and James Larkin. In their own way these people were feminists and believed in women's rights, as we do. All parties in the House should play their part in improving this legislation. More time is needed for consideration not only of Second Stage but other Stages also. Let us use this opportunity to improve the legislation along the lines suggested. It is essential that we have good legislation governing the entire working relationship between TDs and their secretaries. We must practice what we preach and promote good industrial relations not only outside the House but also inside it and in our constituency offices.

I very much regret that my speech has been rather garbled and truncated. I will now make way for my colleague, Deputy Bell, who is also greatly concerned about this issue.

I thank my colleague for sharing his time with me. I welcome the Bill which for the first time has afforded us a real opportunity to correct a number of injustices that have existed for many years in relation to the employment of staff, particularly secretarial staff.

I was chairman of the Labour Party Parliamentary Party when we lost seats in one general election and I saw the turmoil this caused for the secretarial staff. The Labour Party had to resolve these problems as no procedures were laid down in regard to the employment of secretarial staff. These men and women who, as far as I could see had no conditions of employment, were like nomads. Each parliamentary party had loose guidelines on the employment of secretarial staff. As a result, these staff seemed to struggle from one problem to another, and the problems changed after each general election. Similar problems arose in regard to the secretarial staff employed by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael when those parties lost seats in general elections and there was a surplus of staff.

When I read the Bill yesterday I immediately encountered problems with section 7 and the consequential sections. With respect, I suggest to the Minister that he should allow sufficient time for the union to consult with the staff and negotiate with the relevant Department. The Minister needs to spell out the people with whom the unions should negotiate. Who are the employers? There is no definition of who is responsible for the employment of secretarial and other staff for this House. Our secretaries should be as much a part of the staff of this House as any other section and should be treated in the same way, which they are not at present.

Deputies who are not re-elected to this House can fall back on their professions. Most Members of this House have a profession, business or farm they can fall back on. However, the only avenue open to these secretarial staff when they lose their jobs is to go on the dole, if an arrangement cannot be made within the party for which they work to re-employ them in one way or another.

If we accept the concept of a contract we will effectively be privatising the employment of our staff. Section 7 (3) (b) will exonerate the State from its responsibilities, under any heading, for the employment of these women and men. What about the staff working in constituency offices in Drogheda, Dundalk, Kerry or Tipperary? As we only received a copy of the Bill yesterday we have not had an opportunity to consult these staff, some of whom may be union members and others who may not. The unions certainly did not have an opportunity to talk to their members about the proposals in the Bill — my secretary certainly knew nothing about them. As it was late when I got home last night I did not have an opportunity to tell her about the provisions in the Bill dealing with her employment, future employment, pension rights and other rights.

Apart from section 7, and its consequential sections, I have no problem with the other provisions. I suggest to the Minister in the strongest possible terms that he delete section 7 and its consequential sections until such time as a proper agreement can be worked out on behalf of all the staff and back-up staff working for the various parties. Once an agreement is reached the Minister could bring forward a separate Bill which would regularise the position in regard to the employment of secretarial staff. We have had enough ministerial orders. In January of last year several ministerial orders were introduced by the then Minister for Social Welfare and the then Minister for Finance which had a major impact on a very large section of the community. We did not have an opportunity to debate or challenge those orders in the House as the Dáil was not session. I had to get copies of those orders from the Oireachtas Library.

Even if I or any of my colleagues are not Members of this House in years to come, our secretaries will still require employment. There is no provision in the Bill dealing with unfair dismissals, redundancy, pensions — there is a provision to allow for the transfer of their existing arrangements to other employment — holiday entitlements, holiday pay entitlement, minimum notice payments if they lose their employment or we lose our seats, maternity leave or sick pay. The Minister may say that all these matters can be dealt with by way of regulation. However, the issues with which regulations will deal should be reflected in the Bill, particularly in section 7. I ask the Minister to delete section 7 and include a properly negotiated agreement for the staff in a separate Bill. The conditions of employment of our secretaries should not be dealt with in a Bill which deals with the chairmen of Oireachtas committees and allowances to Members living outside and inside Dublin. These matters are of no relevance to secretarial staff who want to know their conditions of employment and to be assured that their employment will be protected by the Oireachtas and all parties.

I know that that is the aim of every Deputy. That is why I took great exception this morning to Deputy Bruton's remarks in which he sought to imply that members of the Labour Party were going to support a Bill containing provisions which were totally opposite to everything they ever believed in.

That is what Deputy Ferris had said.

I do not agree with the manner in which the Bill was introduced and the influence of the Department of Finance, which is trying to shed all responsibility for these secretarial staff who work so hard not alone for Deputies but on behalf of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I thought this was a Government Bill.

Responsibility for the conditions of employment and payment of the secretarial staff should be transferred to the Houses of the Oireachtas and dealt with in the same way as issues relating to other members of the staff of the Oireachtas are dealt with. Money for the payment of their salaries and pensions should be provided for in the Estimate for the Houses of the Oireachtas and should be controlled and administered by the Office of the Ceann Comhairle. This would give them some recourse, for example, they would be able to bring their cases to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and have the support of the Deputies for whom they work. I am glad we are only taking Second Stage of the Bill today as this will give the Minister time to reflect on the points raised. A separate agreement dealing with the conditions of employment of our secretaries and the other backup staff should be negotiated with the unions. Indeed, we should not agree to take Committee Stage until such time as this suggestion is agreed by the Whips from all parties.

Is there any time left for me?

I am afraid not, Deputy. Under an order of the Dáil of this day I must now call on the Minister of State to reply.

I thank all the Deputies who contributed to the debate. While not downgrading the role of the secretaries, having listened to the debate the general impression one would get about the Members of this House out of the mouths of Members is that there is a shower of chancers knocking around who will exploit their secretaries and other employees, will not pay them and will not abide by the legislation.

While the contributions from Deputies were well measured, it struck me that they might be interpreted in the wrong way. As all of us in this House know, certain sections of the media are constantly waiting for an opportunity to paint us as bad boys and girls who are only out for ourselves, and they would have got a certain amount of ammunition from what some Members have said here today. I realise that was not their intention, but the thought struck me as I listened to the various contributions.

I will attempt to deal with most of the queries raised by Deputies; and I thank Deputy Rabbitte, in particular, for the 12 questions he put forward. I will try to deal with them here, or by way of written reply if I am unable to deal with all of them. This Bill is simply an enabling Bill; it will allow us to put the secretarial scheme into a legal framework. Following that, all Deputies are well aware that we must sit down and negotiate. Whatever about the Department of Finance or the Houses of the Oireachtas, all of the Whips are in agreement that there should be no lessening of the conditions and terms of employment of our current secretarial staff. That is a fair summary of our position; and we, as a group of Whips, indicated to the unions and the Minister for Finance that we would be fighting that case on behalf of the secretaries with the Department of Finance. My attitude has not changed in that regard, although, having heard some of the comments that have been made in the past week, I could be excused for changing my attitude. However, my attitude has not changed. My fundamental position is that we do not make the conditions of employment of our current secretaries any less than they are at present.

You can make them better.

If it is possible to do so, I will try to enhance their conditions.

Deputy Bell referred to writing the terms of a contract into a Bill and he and a number of other Deputies made various suggestions that they would like to see in a contract. If we include such measures in the Bill, if the secretaries want a change, or if a change in the Bill is required between the parties or individual Deputies, it would require coming into this House each time to amend it in order to change a term of contract.

That clearly would not be feasible. We must establish the framework, make our agreements and have them binding on both sides. That is my approach and I believe it is a practical one rather than attempting to have all these terms written into a Bill.

I agree with a number of the points made by Deputy Kenny. He is correct when he says that this is a fundamental change in the relationship that existed heretofore, because nobody knew what that relationship was. It was not clear whether the secretaries were working for the Department of Finance, the parties, the individual Deputy or the Houses of the Oireachtas. That must be clearly defined in the Bill and it is being defined as a relationship between the Deputy and the secretary. Deputy Kenny referred to practices that have developed within the parties — for example, secretaries being required to go to the Fine Gael headquarters during an election campaign. He stated that was a long established practice and that it might change if one had 45 different employers. It may or may not change, depending on the commitment of the individual secretaries; and in my experience most of them, regardless of their particular party, are committed to that party and will carry out work over and above the call of duty. Therefore, that relationship and the "extra curricular" activities that they might engage in at election times and on other occasions need not necessarily change.

Deputy Rabbitte, along with other Members, referred to the section in the Bill which deals with making payments to some parties or to groups. This refers specifically to administrative arrangements that might be necessary after negotiations with the unions and when agreement is reached with the parties as to how they will operate the new system. Deputies do not want to be employers, and Deputy Kenny referred to this also. Therefore, there may be a need for the parties to take on the administration of a scheme and that is provided for in the Bill. It is separate to the issue that the Deputy referred to in relation to the committees and the necessary backup. This provision is to administer the scheme in whatever way it is drawn up.

I wish to repeat again, all issues regarding unfair dismissals, minimum terms of notice, holiday pay etc., regardless of whether the employer is the Deputy or the party, will have to be fully met.

They are, by the Deputy.

They have to be met by the employer, whether that is the Deputy or the party. I certainly have no difficulty saying that——

I do not want to do that. I came into this House to serve my constituents, not to become an employer.

Perhaps I have taken Deputy Bell up wrong. I understood the point he was making on behalf of the secretaries was that they would have to have the same legislative protection as every other worker and I am saying that they will have that. That is subject to agreement, but those laws will apply and that is why there is a provision in the Bill for parties to be given some administrative assistance and backup to ensure that these measures are implemented. The secretaries need have no fear in that regard. The parties will have to fight their own battles with regard to how the obligations that will be placed on the party or the individual Deputy are met and shared by that party.

In regard to other matters that were raised — and Deputies will appreciate I am taking them in the order that they were raised, rather than dealing with them in general — I wish to refer to maternity allowance. At the moment, as I understand it, secretaries continue to be paid when they are on maternity leave and whatever social welfare payments they receive they pay back to the Department of Finance. Under the new scheme the maternity rate would be the standard rate, but it is a matter that could be negotiated in the contract that secretaries have with their individual Deputies or parties. It is open to them to increase that amount to the full amount of pay if they want. It allows that flexibility and it is a matter that certainly must be addressed.

It is my understanding also that the allowance paid to the Deputy would be paid at the higher level of the scale so that those on EO and AO levels would be catered for and the Deputy would have sufficient moneys to pay at that level. Deputy Rabbitte pointed out that in some cases — and Deputy O'Donnell had strong views on this also — with the commencement of the new system the individual Deputy would be obliged to pay at a particular level. In that regard I do not accept the fear that secretaries might have that they would be given a pittance and told to get on with the job, because it would not work that way. The relationship between Deputies and secretaries is more personal than that and it is one of personal commitment. That is the way I have always viewed the relationship between Deputies and secretaries. I do not envisage, even in changed circumstances, that relationship or attitude changing. In fact I predict they will enhance that attitude, where there is personal commitment between a Member and secretary. The system will allow a Member flexibility to increase payments within the band of money he or she receives, allowing them to reward a secretary accordingly.

Some Member mentioned the question of overtime. Some Members may not be aware of it but, for secretaries, in this House, there is an allowance of up to six hours for a Member who has a secretary here. I cannot obtain that allowance for my secretary in the constituency. I consider she should be paid it, as should everybody else. Therefore, the anomaly in relation to constituency secretaries works very much to their disadvantage. I want to see that anomaly being redressed. Indeed, the provisions of this Bill will allow us do so. In addition, the system applicable to constituency secretaries is one that obtains for the lifetime of a Dáil, as is proposed under the provisions of this Bill. However, if a Member loses his or her Dáil seat the constituency secretary goes automatically, without there being any pooling arrangement or anything else. Certainly I take the point made by a number of Members that such anomalies which have developed should be redressed. The provisions of this Bill so provide. That has always been my intention, as the other Whips will confirm, since we discussed this matter between us.

Deputy O'Donnell made a very strong argument about the fact that these particular sections have been incorporated into this Bill. I do not want to be insulting in any way to anybody — I do not intend to be so — but, under the terms of our law and Constitution the secretarial assistance scheme is a facility for Members and must be treated in that manner. Therefore, it is in that manner that it must be treated within the provisions of the Bill before us. I should say that the Government is not attempting to be facetious in any way about that. That is the reality and the legislative manner in which we must deal with it.

Deputy O'Donnell raised a number of other points about back-up facilities for the committee system. Perhaps, in the light of what we are talking about, I will skip over that query and go on to deal with questions raised by Deputy Rabbitte, reverting to those raised by Deputy O'Donnell later.

Since Deputy Rabbitte will appreciate that all of this will be subject to negotiation, I will attempt to give him my personal view only with regard to some of the questions he posed.

I interrupt to inform the Minister of State that there are only two minutes remaining.

I will finish as quickly as I can. On the question of continuity of service, Deputy Rabbitte will excuse me if I am somewhat vague but he will understand, having been a union official, that when one begins talking about entering into negotiations one does not expose one's hand totally. We are talking now in the context of a contract of some kind. The Deputy asked whether continuity of employment or service would be possible. Yes, it will be possible.

The Deputy asked how long the job or employment can be retained, whether it can be retained as long as the relevant Member retains his or her seat or for the lifetime of a Dáil. I should point out that the provisions of the Bill allow for such employment to be retained for the lifetime of a Dáil. I presume that if a Member is satisfied with a secretary's performance and so on, arrangements can be made for her continuance of service in that manner. I suppose the short answer is that it is possible to hold the job after an election. The Deputy also asked whether there would be a common contract. I cannot give him a straight answer to that because different parties may have different needs and may well decide they want different types of contract. But if asked whether I would favour a type of framework of minimum standards to be applicable across the board I can say I would favour it.

I have dealt with questions about holidays, working hours, sick pay and so on. The Deputy also asked about public sector pay increases. I presume the allowance will be increased in line with public service pay increases, thereby allowing a Member to increase payments to his or her secretary as well. I have already referred to maternity leave which was also mentioned by the Deputy. He also raised the matter of overtime payments. The six hours overtime per week at present allowed to secretaries in the House will be built into a Member's allowance, thereby allowing it to be passed on to secretaries.

I was not quite sure from where the suggestion about a transfer to other Members emanated but, if I might put it this way, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent such a transfer. Neither is there any provision in the Bill to render such transfer compulsory. I am not sure that I understood the point precisely but I can say that there is no provision in the Bill that would affect such a transfer one way or the other.

Complaints and so on would be dealt with in the normal manner through the normal channels. For example, if a secretary has a complaint and is a member of a union, that complaint can be made to the union through the appropriate channels.

With regard to negotiations, although I have never been an active negotiator for or on behalf of a union at any stage, I understood that when a union began negotiating with an employer, with Whips or whoever, the union representative, speaks for and on behalf of all the union's membership. That is the position as I understood it. I know from what Members have said that there appears to be a communications problem. Certainly, I would not be happy with circumstances in which we, the four Whips, would agree something with a union representative or representatives, which was not communicated down along the line. I take the point made that communications will have to be improved right from the top to the bottom. That is something which, over Christmas, I will endeavour to devise a means of doing.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

After the recess, by agreement with the Whips.

Early after the recess?

The first sitting day after the recess, by agreement with the Whips.

Committee Stage ordered for first sitting day after the Christmas recess.
Sitting suspended at 2.20 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share