Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Mar 1998

Vol. 489 No. 1

Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial, Parliamentary, Judicial and Court Offices (Amendment) Bill, 1998: Second Stage.

Minister for Finance (Mr. McCreevy)

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

The issue of allowances to Deputies and Senators has been put on the long finger for far too long. It has been widely recognised for some time that the workload of politicians has increased substantially over the past number of years. They work long and unsociable hours and, more often than not, incur large expenses for which they are not sufficiently remunerated. However, bearing all this in mind there is no easy way to announce more money for politicians as it is invariably seen as politicians piling more money on the political gravy train.

The job of a legislator is becoming more unattractive by the day. However, suppressing wage increases and not being adequately compensated for the work that one does is not healthy for the political system in general. It merely feeds the apologetic nature of the current climate where individuals who work hard are not rewarded for the extra expenses they may incur. The proposed changes I am putting forward in the Bill will allow the Minister for Finance to change the current allowances to an amount which is fair and equitable and will reward Members of this House for the valuable work they do on behalf of their constituents. I do not apologise for this, and neither should any other Member.

The Bill is largely an enabling measure under three broad headings. First, it will enable recognition to be accorded to the work carried out by Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas who undertake specific parliamentary responsibilities over and above their normal duties as parliamentarians. Second, it will update the statutory enabling provisions for travel and secretarial facilities for Members and parties to assist them in their parliamentary duties. Third, the Bill contains the necessary enabling powers to deal appropriately with the pension arrangements of judges and court officers in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Judge McMenamin. It will also deal with some anomalies in relation to pensions of Ministers and other officeholders.

The Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector recommended the payment of allowances to the chairpersons of Oireachtas committees in 1992. It made this recommendation because it considered that the workload of the chairperson significantly exceeded what would be regarded as the fully extended range of responsibilities and workload of the "ordinary" Member of the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) (Amendment) Act, 1994, gave effect to the recommendation of the review body by providing for the payment of allowances to the chairpersons of Oireachtas committees.

Since then, there have been substantial changes in the role, functions and number of Oireachtas committees. In addition to the more traditional committees, such as the Committee of Public Accounts, we now have a new range of committees whose scope extends to scrutiny of the performance of all Departments. This change is an integral part of the new emphasis on quality service, transparency and public accountability which is at the heart of the strategic management initiative.

While the new committee system is in its infancy, it has been generally accepted that it is working very well. The role of the members of these committees in bringing about this situation and in ensuring that it continues is vital. In particular, there is a need to recognise the additional burdens being placed on committee members other than the chairpersons. For this reason, it is timely to provide for the payment of allowances not only to the chairpersons but also to those Members of the Oireachtas who hold other positions of responsibility which are vital to the proper functioning of committees and the Oireachtas generally. Accordingly, section 4 of the Bill provides that the Government may, by order, provide for the payment of allowances to the chairpersons and vice-chairpersons of, and whips to, Oireachtas committees. It also provides for the payment of allowances to the chairpersons of sub-committees of Oireachtas committees.

Section 5 provides that the Government may, by order, provide for the allocation of an annual amount to the chairpersons of Oireachtas committees. This allocation is intended to assist the committees to carry out their roles by the payment of allowances to members in respect of rapporteur or other services which they may provide. Only members of committees who do not receive an allowance under sections 3 or 4 may receive such an allowance.

Following the introduction of allowances for the chairpersons of Oireachtas committees, it was decided to pay an allowance to the Leader of the House in the Seanad. The question of allowances for the holders of certain other recognised positions in the Dáil and Seanad also arises. As in the case of the chairpersons of Oireachtas committees, there is no doubt that the holders of certain positions in the Dáil and Seanad carry out roles which involve additional duties and responsibilities which significantly exceed those of "ordinary" Members of the Oireachtas. Neither is there any doubt that the roles performed by the holders of these positions contribute greatly to the efficient operation of the Houses.

Accordingly, section 3 provides that the Government may, by order, provide for the payment of allowances to Members of the Oireachtas who hold certain positions in the Dáil and Seanad. The allowances would be payable to the Members concerned in respect of their special duties as holders of these positions. It is proposed that the following positions in the Dáil would attract allowances: the Assistant Government Whip and party whips. The positions in the Seanad, in addition to the Leader of the House are: the Deputy Leader of the House, the Opposition Leader of the Seanad and the Government and Opposition Whips.

Allowances currently payable to the chairmen of various Oireachtas committees are pensionable on a pro rata basis under the Houses of the Oireachtas (Members) pensions scheme. This will, of course, continue to be the case. All of the new allowances under sections 3, 4 and 5 will also be pensionable, and I will make amendments to the pension scheme to carry this through.

In view of the pensionability of these allowances, section 10 provides that the Minister for Finance may make regulations to provide for deductions of pension contributions from these allowances. This will be done on the same basis as applies to the chairmen's allowances at present.

Section 11 provides for a number of technical amendments to clarify what has become present practice in relation to the management of facilities for parties in Leinster House. Specifically, it will abolish the requirement that a deduction be made from the party leader's allowances when the leader is provided with a car at State expense. It will also clarify the present position about payment of allowances to independents and underpin present practice about the provision of secretarial assistance to qualifying parties.

Sections 12, 13 and 14 are complex, but the principle is simple enough. These sections deal with two issues which arise in the operation of the pension arrangements for Ministers, Ministers of State and parliamentary officeholders, which it is appropriate to address.

The first of these issues is in relation to the calculation of pensionable service. In most areas of the public sector one's pension is based on the length of time served. If a person serves for five years, they get a pension in respect of those five years; if they serve five and a half years, their pension is based on five and a half years' service and so forth. By contrast, where Ministers and officeholders are concerned only completed years of service are reckoned and any part years are disregarded. A person could have five years and 364 days' service but the pension would still be based only on five years' service. This Bill would change the situation so that, within the normal overall limits on reckonable service, part years would be reckoned on a pro rata basis. A former officeholder with five and a half years' service will therefore get a slightly better pension than the officeholder with five years' service and less than the officeholder with six years' service.

The other main issue dealt with in relation to the pensions of officeholders concerns the position of former holders of offices which are referred to as "secretarial" offices in the pensions legislation. These include the office of Minister of State, Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Cathaoirleach of Seanad Éireann and Leas-Chathaoirleach. A secretarial pension is calculated on the basis of the salary of the relevant secretarial office — most frequently the Minister of State salary. Even where the person in receipt of such a pension had significant service as a Minister, though not sufficient to qualify for a ministerial pension — just below three years, perhaps — the pension payable will normally be based on the Minister of State salary. It is my belief that service in a ministerial capacity should be more fully recognised than heretofore and the Bill therefore provides that, where more beneficial to the individual, a secretarial pension can be based on the average salary of the qualifying offices held by the person concerned, weighted according to the length of time spent in each qualifying office. I am sure the House will agree that these changes in pension arrangements are reasonable and appropriate.

In section 9 I propose a number of amendments to the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Act, 1938. First, I am repealing section 4(3) of the Act, which relates to regulation making powers in respect of Members' travelling facilities, because this particular provision is no longer in use. For some time now regulations concerning such facilities have been made under the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Act, 1964.

Second, I propose to repeal section 4(4) of the 1938 Act under which Members are obliged to submit their claims for reimbursement of travelling expenses to the Leinster House authorities within 100 days of such expenses being incurred. l think Members will agree it is anachronistic, in this day and age, to have such a provision in primary legislation. Furthermore, as Members generally will be aware, failure to observe this time limit means that claims for travelling expenses cannot be paid, even though such expenses have been incurred by Members in the exercise of their parliamentary duties. The repeal of the "100 day rule" provision in the 1938 Act will address this issue. I also intend to deal in the future with the question of time limits on the lodging of claims for recoupment of travelling expenses in regulations. The technical amendments in section 18 to the regulation-making powers governing Members' travelling expenses will facilitate this.

Some of the existing restrictions on payment of overnight allowances and travelling facilities for Members attending meetings in Leinster House are anomalous. Members will be pleased to hear that, in section 15 of the Bill, I am making provision to extend the number of occasions when an overnight allowance may be paid for accommodation costs arising from attendance at Leinster House. Specifically, where Members wish to attend Leinster House for the purpose of using the facilities available in the House on non-sitting days, they will be entitled to claim an overnight allowance for accommodation expenses, subject to an annual limit of 25 such occasions per year. This will be of benefit to those Members who, heretofore, have been unable to avail of the facilities of the House during recess periods, because there was no legislative provision in place to allow for the reimbursement of their accommodation expenses in Dublin. This measure will, I hope, encourage Members to make fuller use of the facilities available in the House, thus further assisting them in the performance of their parliamentary duties.

Members of both Houses have long argued for improvements in the level of secretarial support available under the existing provisions, arguing that they incur substantial additional costs of secretarial help outside Leinster House out of their own pockets. In response to this request, section 16 provides for an augmentation of the existing provisions for secretarial facilities by introducing a new allowance for this purpose of £5,000 per annum for Deputies and £3,750 per annum for Seanadóirí.

A number of other provisions in Part 2 of the Bill are of a minor technical nature and I do not propose to go into any great detail on them. For example, sections 17, 19, 20 and 22 fall into this category. Section 21 extends to Members' daily travel allowance, overnight allowance, constituency telephone allowance and the new special secretarial allowance the existing statutory exemption from income tax that already applies to Members' general expense allowance.

The provisions of Part III of the Bill are intended to achieve two objectives. For serving judges and court officers and future appointees to such offices, the rate of retirement lump sum will be increased from the current rate of one and one half times the pension to a rate which, as with most other groups of public servants, gives a lump sum of up to one and one half times pay. It also provides enabling powers to deal appropriately with the position of judges and court officers who retired before 19 December 1996, the date of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Judge McMenamin which related to the superannuation provisions of judges.

The background to this matter is that, prior to 1961, judges qualified for a pension of up to two-thirds of pay but with no lump sum or death gratuity. Following representations from judges, the present arrangements for lump sums and death gratuities were put in place in 1961 on a self-financing basis. An actuarial valuation of the Judiciary's terms determined that a retirement lump sum of one and one half times the pension and a death gratuity of one year's pay could be financed by a reduction of 25 per cent in the pension previously payable, thus giving a revised maximum pension of 50 per cent of pay. As a result, the superannuation terms currently applying to District Judges and court officers provide for a pension which accrues at the rate of two eightieths of salary per year of service subject to a maximum of one half of pay after 20 years. The lump sum is three eightieths of salary per year of service subject to a maximum of one and one half times pension. In contrast, the lump sum of most public service groups is one and one half times pay.

For Supreme, High and Circuit Court Judges, the pension accrues on the basis of two eightieths of salary for each of the first five years of service and three eightieths in respect of each year from the sixth to the 15th year, subject to a maximum of one half pay after 15 years. The lump sum is three eightieths of salary for each of the first five years of service and nine one hundred and sixtieths of salary in respect of each year from the sixth to the 15th year. As indicated previously, on death in service a death gratuity of one year's pay is payable.

For some considerable time, the Judiciary have claimed that it should be given the same rate of lump sum as public servants generally. Judges took up the matter of their pension provisions on a number of occasions with the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector. In report No. 30 of 30 November 1987, the review body stated:

Many of the submissions we received from the judiciary expressed strong dissatisfaction with certain aspects of their non-salary conditions and suggested.that the Review Body should deal with these issues. Some of these issues are outside our terms of reference. We [the review body] recommend therefore that the Minister for Justice should initiate a review of the current non-salary conditions of judges.

More recently, the late District Judge Liam McMenamin took a case in the High Court claiming, inter alia, that District Judges should have their retirement lump sums doubled. In 1994 the High Court accepted that the actuarial basis for calculating the 25 per cent reduction in judges' pensions required to pay for the retirement lump sum and death gratuity was correct in 1961 but it ruled that because of changes since then, principally the introduction of the arrangement whereby pensions in payment are increased by reference to increases in the pay of serving staff, the retirement lump sum should now be 1.9 times pension. The High Court declared that:

The State, in permitting a gross inequality to arise between the reduction in pension of District Court Judges and the costs of the lump sum gratuities intended to be met by such reduction, is in breach of its constitutional duty to secure pension rights for District Judges which are not irrational or wholly inequitable.

On appeal the Supreme Court, in dealing with the actuarial basis of the 1961 arrangements, stated that:

It appears from the evidence in this case, that this situation has changed radically since 1961 and that the deduction of one quarter from the pension to which judges are entitled is adequate to provide a lump sum on retirement of 1.9 times the pension payable to judges on retirement rather than 1.5 times as provided for by law.

Either the deduction of 25 per cent when a deduction of 22 per cent would be sufficient for the purpose or the failure to pay a gratuity of 1.9 times the pension, amounts to a reduction or diminution of the pension entitlement of the Appellant.

This situation requires to be remedied by the Oireachtas in accordance with the provisions of Articles 35 and 36 of the Constitution because the present situation has led to an unjust and inequitable result whereby the Appellant has suffered loss whether by way of excessive reduction in his pension or the payment of an inadequate lump sum by way of gratuity.

The manner in which this situation is remedied is a matter for the Oireachtas and it is not open to this Court to interfere with the manner in which this situation is dealt with by the Oireachtas unless the Oireachtas fails to have regard to its constitutional obligations in this regard and this Court must assume at this stage that the Oireachtas will have regard to such obligations.

In drafting the legislation which is before the House, the Office of the Attorney General advised that implementation of the Supreme Court judgment would necessitate change not only in relation to the retirement lump sums of serving judges but also in relation to retirees before 19 December 1996 where the judge is still alive or there is a spouse's pension in payment.

It will be noted that the increase in the lump sums proposed in the Bill for serving and future judges and court officers goes beyond what is strictly required in order to comply with the Supreme Court decision. Given that the review body recommended that there be a review of this matter and having regard to the fact that most other public servants already have an entitlement to a maximum lump sum of one and one-half times pay, there is a strong case for giving judges and court officers corresponding terms. The Bill provides accordingly.

As regards the detailed provisions in Part III, sections 24 to 27 substitute the actual rate of pension payable to judges and court officers for the existing arrangement which provides for a notional pension of up to two-thirds pay which is then reduced by one-quarter, that is, to a maximum of one-half of pay, in the case of people who qualify for the retirement lump sum and death gratuity. That arrangement was incorporated in the 1961 Act because that legislation had to cater for judges who opted to retain the pre-1961 arrangements as well as for judges who opted for the new arrangements. All judges in the former category have now retired so the arrangement is no longer necessary.

Sections 28 and 29 provide for the increases in the retirement lump sums. Section 28 has the effect of increasing the retirement lump sums of serving and future judges and court officers up to standard public sector levels. Section 29 provides enabling power to address the requirements of the Supreme Court decision in so far as it applies to judges and court officers who retired before the date of the McMenamin decision.

Section 30 provides for certain technical amendments of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions)(Amendment) Act, 1991, which are required as a result of the amendments in sections 24 to 27 of this Bill.

As I have said, the proposals in the Bill are largely of an enabling nature to facilitate improvements in the facilities for Members in pursuit of their parliamentary duties, recognise the contribution being made by Members who are being given new positions of responsibility in this context, and remove some anomalies in relation to certain pension entitlements of former Ministers and officeholders. I am also availing of the opportunity presented by the Bill to deal appropriately with pension arrangements for judges and court officers in the wake of the McMenamin judgment.

On passing of the Bill it is my intention to bring forward at an early date the appropriate regulations to give effect to the changes now being proposed. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Noonan

I thank the Minister for Finance for explaining the Bill in great detail. His speech, which has been circulated, will be helpful to all Deputies and Senators in understanding the changes proposed.

On behalf of the Deputies and Senators in the Fine Gael Party I welcome the changes proposed by the Minister but changes in allowances are no substitution for a proper salary. Deputies and Senators of the Houses of the Oireachtas are very badly paid. Many Deputies of my age have had the experience of their children, who are in their 20s and just out of college, earning more than the people who represent parliamentary democracy.

We do not want to engage in a long, self pitying whinge — that is not the purpose of my remarks — but the Bill has wider implications. People are motivated to come into politics for many reasons. Many are motivated by the desire to give public service. They are certainly not motivated by considerations of money. People must have a salary which is sufficient to lead at least the kind of life they led before they came into politics.

Increasingly, the number of people who go forward for election to the Dáil in particular is being decreased. Certain categories of people — I was in a favourable category — in a public service or teaching job can effectively come on secondment to the Dáil. That puts one in a favourable position but hundreds if not thousands of people in the private sector could not possibly seek election to the Dáil because they could not afford to work the hours required for the salary being offered and, more importantly, they could not afford to risk the security of their position and have nothing to go back to when one takes the exigencies of elections into account.

Deputies will be aware, if they examine their records or read Deputy Nealon's book, that approximately one-quarter of the Dáil has changed in all recent elections. Of the 166 Members, approximately 40 — over 40 on the last occasion — either retire and do not seek re-election or fail to be re-elected. That is a large turnover. Any sensible young person with a good job and good promotional prospects in the private sector would be crazy to put that at risk and incur the exigencies and difficulties of public office and to measure it against a salary which for many people of reasonably modest income in the professions would involve an actual reduction the day they come into this House. The Bill is not a substitute for a proper salary. The Buckley and Gleeson reports served this House and its Members very badly in the recommendations they made over the years.

I welcome the terms of the Bill. The committee system is well established now. The chairmen, vice-chairmen and Whips do a good job, and much of the work of the House is now conducted in committees. Persons who hold those positions have an additional responsibility to attend and work in the House, unlike colleagues who do not hold those positions, and they should be modestly rewarded. I understand the Minister has in mind the establishment and regulation of awards which already are fairly modest. It is a good idea also to reward rapporteurs in committees and there is provision in the Bill that the Minister, by regulation, may in future apply an allowance to a rapporteur who carries out particular work for a committee.

The committee system is operating in an uneven manner. I am of the view that we have too many committees but if the principal decision is that we need a committee to match every Department, it will be difficult to reduce their number while having specialist committees of the Houses also.

The manner in which we conduct our business gives an impression that we are inefficient and that we do not properly set about our business. It is absolutely ludicrous in a House with 166 Members that committee sittings take place simultaneously with plenary sessions. Any county council in the country would have a bigger turnout for crucial debates than this House would have even on a matter as important as Report Stage of a Finance Bill or the debate we had earlier today on matters of foreign policy, European defence and security.

We must get to the stage when plenary sessions are shorter and well attended. Plenary sessions should not take place unless approximately one-quarter of the Members of the House attend. A minimum of 40 Members should be in attendance but that cannot happen if we have long plenary sittings where work expands to fill the time available and a kind of Murphy's law operates Proper committees backed up by much sharper and shorter plenary sessions, where real business is conducted, would give a far better impression of this House than is being communicated through "Oireachtas Report" or the short clips of business communicated to the public in the 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock television news. We do not look well, we do not sound well and it appears that everybody is just passing through. The general impression people get looking at "Oireachtas Report" is that Deputies do not do their job. There is little point trying to explain to them that Deputies are in their offices conducting constituency work, that they are watching the proceedings on the monitor and that they are under a whipping system in the House. I sometimes despair when I see the school parties come into the Public Gallery and look down into the Chamber. The number of Members present now would be regarded as a big crowd. We are selling ourselves short. We are supposed to be in the communications business. We are supposed to be very image conscious. We might be conscious of individual or party image but I do not see any consciousness of the image of this House.

There is a connection between the low turnout in elections and the impression that what we do here is becoming increasingly irrelevant. I suggest a very modest proposal which should be accepted across the parties. We should sharpen the work of the committees which are beginning to work well but we should also sharpen the work of the plenary sessions of the House. The Order of Business is well attended; it sounds like a normal democracy and a normal Parliament in action. The morning session should consist of the Order of Business followed by Taoiseach's Question Time for half an hour or three quarters of an hour. The rest of the day should be dedicated to committee work. Real plenary sessions should take place in the House from about 7.55 p.m. where the work of the committees would be reported back to the House and Second Stages taken.

The House should not sit unless a large quorum is in attendance and not on standby for when the quorum bells ring. Plenary sessions should not take place unless about a quarter of the Members — about 40 people — are present. There might then be real debate and we would look and sound like parliamentarians again. It is not that the work is not done but that a bad impression is given. While we are reflecting on the committee system and the Minister is rewarding chairmen and other committee officeholders, it is worth being self critical also and looking at the impression which is created, particularly by the plenary sessions in the House.

Much of the work which carries this Parliament forward is done by Members of the Opposition Front Bench. In future, party leaders will have to fill Front Benches on some kind of punishment detail because they are the only people who are not being rewarded in this Bill. Front Bench members of a party are normally not appointed as committee chairmen, vice-chairmen and Whips because they already have a position. Those who carry forward the actual policy work will be doing so without any additional reward, which is a flaw in the system.

The Minister has also omitted the category of acting chairmen of the House, who put in a great deal of time. I cannot see why the substitutes for the Ceann Comhairle cannot be rewarded if those who chair committees are to be rewarded. That is anomalous and invidious and if the Minister cannot change it under regulation he should do so by an amendment on Committee or Report Stage. Many acting chairmen will receive committee allowances, in any case, so we are only talking about three or four additional people.

I welcome the overnight allowances. It is nice not to be out of pocket. Any of us on the Front Bench who live in the country come to Dublin throughout the summer, apart from our normal fortnight's holidays, and stay overnight. We come to Dublin every week during the summer, although there might not be any Front Bench meetings during the first three weeks of August. Until the Minister introduced this provision, we paid for the overnights out of our own pockets and we had no way of claiming it back, either through tax claims or claims on the public purse. That is unfair. People who must stay in Dublin during the recesses because of their parliamentary or party duties should be able to claim their expenses and I welcome this provision.

The secretarial allowances are also welcome. People have different practices. My secretary is in Leinster House, as are those of many Members. I also need secretarial assistance in my constituency and this allowance will help in a small way. However, I wish to point out a further anomaly. A Member whose secretary is based in the constituency receives a start-up grant for providing an office and an annuity towards the expenses of that office. However, those of us whose secretaries are based in Leinster House must incur the expenses of a constituency office ourselves.

It cost me money to build and set up and heat my constituency office. I must pay rates on it because the local authority regards it as a commercial enterprise. I must also pay liability insurance to cover anyone coming into it who might claim against me. However, because my secretary is based in Leinster House I cannot avail of the start-up grant or the annuities which are paid to those whose secretaries are based in their constituencies. That is severely anomalous because my colleagues whose offices are based in their constituencies can use all the facilities in Leinster House. They do not have a secretary here but they have the same accommodation I do — we do not put them out in the backyard and they do not have to work under umbrellas like people at the races do. We should make the playing pitch truly level.

I welcome, in general, the provisions in respect of the tidying up of pensions. It is a bit severe that officeholders who serve less than three years in office do not receive any pension. There is a case to be made for a portion of a year being treated as a full year for the first three years so that a person who served for two and a half years, for example, would be treated as pensionable. I welcome the minor amendments which were made subsequent to that.

In regard to the changes made in respect of the judges and court officers, I do not believe the Minister had any choice but to act. The decision of the courts in the case brought by Judge McMenamin seems to make it mandatory on the Minister to amend the treatment of lump sums along the lines which he is now proposing.

I do not know what scope the Minister has to take on board any advice we give him here. However, his proposals will be generally welcomed in the House and generally deplored outside the House, but what else is new?

Mr. McCreevy

What is new?

Mr. Ferris

It is understandable why they are deplored outside the House because, as Deputy Noonan said, we are very slow to promote what we are trying to do in our membership of the Oireachtas. Whenever a suggestion is made to improve the circumstances of Members there are headlines in the media. When a professional submission was made to the Buckley review group, it was publicised as if we were receiving those recommended changes and people still believe we got them. The Buckley decision was communicated to two Governments, one of which accepted it in principle, but neither of them paid it.

The process of an independent review of the salary structures and expenses involved the making of reports by professionals. Those reports were not acted upon but the media have always projected the idea that they were granted. That makes it very difficult to reassure people that, although it was written about in the media, it did not happen.

This package was flagged well before Christmas in the media and everyone thought we had received the increases for Christmas. We still have not got them but at least the Minister has grasped the nettle and put into legislation a way for Members of the Oireachtas to recoup their expenses. This happened after a long, tedious process of examination of all the claims which were made.

There is no doubt that Members who at present get £2,000 a year in telephone expenses incur expenditure of £5,000 and £6,000 in the interests of their constituents out of their own pockets which is forgotten about by the media. When officials of the Department of Finance who wanted to ensure the claims were legitimate trawled the accommodation available within reasonable distance of Leinster House, they discovered the amount of compensation paid to Members who had to stay overnight was far less than the costs. Likewise the mileage allowance, which the Minister now has the opportunity to regulate. The applicable mileage allowances for the Civil Service do not equate to the kind of mileage which Members of the Oireachtas travel on an ongoing basis. For example, to undertake one day's clinics in my constituency last Saturday I drove 120 miles over 11 hours. I then spent most of Sunday preparing and documenting the problems I encountered. That is why none of my four sons would attempt to take up politics. They all earn much more than I.

We either pay people properly or there will be no incentive for them to give a service to the State and to those they wish to represent. Colleagues who won seats in the 1992 general election and lost them in the general election last year and were fortunate to be seconded from their professions found, on returning to their jobs, that their new salaries far exceeded what they received as Members of the Oireachtas. They gained money by losing their seats. There must be something wrong with a democracy which encourages people who wish to serve the State for a reasonable recompense not to be re-elected when they can return to their profession and be paid more.

The Minister has addressed many anomalies in this wideranging Bill. In some instances, decisions by the courts placed a constitutional obligation on the Minister to respond, especially in the area of justices. While the media will only write about politicians because they are popular figures for criticism, none of us should apologise for what the Minister has done in grasping the nettle of inadequate accommodation and recoupment of expenditure involved in our parliamentary duties and for providing that people should be paid appropriately.

I commend the Minister for his courage in addressing the anomalies which were pointed out to previous Ministers without success. I also welcome the fact that, for the first time, he has addressed some of the outstanding problems.

Mr. Rabbitte

The Bill does not address the fundamental issue of Dáil salaries. Instead, it extends overnight expenses for non Dublin Deputies, proposes the introduction of allowances for Deputies with responsibility posts in the new committee structure, creates an allowance of £5,000 for additional support staff for Deputies and makes changes in the provisions relating to the pensions of Ministers, Ministers of State and other officeholders. It also provides for improvements in the retirement lump sums payable to certain members of the Judiciary for the reasons the Minister has stated.

Inevitably, some of the measures proposed will be seen as an alternative route to tackling the issue of basic Dáil salaries, which successive Governments have avoided in recent years. I would have preferred an approach that would have restored the basic pay of Deputies on an established pay comparison basis and created a serious research facility for Opposition Deputies.

Notwithstanding some of the changes made by the Government, we are now in danger of moving from being a Parliament which did all of its business in the Dáil Chamber to one which is struggling to make operational an elaborate committee structure more appropriate to a Parliament four times our size. It is undesirable that the configuration of our committee structure should be dictated by assuaging the aspirations of disappointed candidates for Government office, irrespective of which Government is in power. It is understandable that if a Member of this House is to conscientiously shoulder the additional burden of a committee chairman, he or she should enjoy a stipend commensurate with that responsibility.

However, I do not agree that the provision of allowances should go beyond the position of chairperson. For that reason, I will table an amendment on Committee Stage to excise section 5. The Government, and perhaps other Deputies, will argue that the purpose of the section is to enable committee members to have approved initiatives properly researched. However, I do not believe that it will work like that in practice.

I support what I believe will come to be seen as one of the most worthwhile initiatives taken by a Minister for Finance in respect of the functioning of this House in section 15 which, for the first time, opens the prospect for Opposition legislators to access research expertise. However, I do not accept that section 5 is the way to enhance this facility. It is open to abuse.

The imbalance in resource available to the Executive as opposed to the Opposition is one of the most serious threats to the effective functioning of our parliamentary democracy. The notion that a Minister, supported by the entire resources of the Civil Service, including the Office of the Attorney General, can be seriously challenged by an Opposition Deputy supported by a secretary is laughable. Quality opposition of legislation is dependent on political parties relying on voluntary advice or on party staff whose salaries must be funded from party resources, thus giving rise to other questions that have taken up a good deal of parliamentary hours in this House in recent years.

The contrast between being and not being in Government is not, as some commentators would have us believe, a chauffeur driven Mercedes but rather the virtually total absence of support staff for the Opposition Deputy. The complexity of issues and legislation before the House nowadays is such that they are no longer capable of being dealt with in the afternoon, when the gentlemen of the Bar ramble in from their real place of employment. In addition, the Opposition Deputy must confront a highly competent permanent government in the Civil Service, but one that is characterised by obsessive secrecy.

The real answer to changing the balance between accountability and control and ensuring greater accountability is improved support services for Deputies. For that reason I welcome section 16, which, in the long-term, opens up the possibility of some redressing of this imbalance between Government and Opposition. I have accordingly put down an amendment which seeks to ensure that the moneys allowed under this section are dedicated for research purposes.

I do not believe that this House can efficiently operate more than half a dozen serious committees, including the Committee of Public Accounts. The plethora of committees now in place has been prompted by ignorant comment in some sections of the media and by Government desire to mollify disappointed ministerial aspirants. Neither is a good enough reason for burdening this House with a raft of committees that overstretch our ability to operate them effectively and whose often heavy workloads are usually ignored, even by the informed press corps. I hope the day is not too far distant when we will rethink this madness. The Chief Whip has frequently defended the legislative record of this Government by rightly saying that more legislation is not necessarily better legislation. However, a committee structure that almost invariably depends on the staying power of party spokespersons for line by line scrutiny of legislation will not necessarily improve the quality of scrutiny of that legislation by holding out the prospect of allowances to reluctant committee members.

I do not denigrate the constituency work of Members of this House. It is difficult to restrain oneself to parliamentary style politeness when one hears some of the sneering omniscience about Deputies and constituency work. It is a great strength of our system of parliamentary democracy that Deputies are rooted in the reality of the lives of ordinary people. We may be open to criticism in terms of the balance of the role of legislator with the tasks and obligations of constituency work. Some have got the balance badly wrong, some create work for the sake of stoking the clientelist system but, generally, it is a positive, formative influence that Deputies are obliged to stay in touch with the needs and aspirations of the people who put us here. In any event, it is folly to think that additional allowances will make legislators out of those for whom the process has so far remained a mystery.

Deputy Noonan referred to the question of the basic pay of Deputies. That is the issue which ought to be addressed. For reasons best known to themselves, successive review bodies have failed to establish a proper basis for remuneration of Deputies. Such efforts as have been made have been fudged by successive Governments. The history of the last review, to which Deputy Ferris referred, is a case in point. A submission made to the Buckley review group on behalf of Deputies suggesting a pay link to the principal officer grade in the civil service was leaked to the media by a member of the committee. The result was that in many sections of the media what was a pay claim became immediately translated into a pay award and merited the headline "TDs to get 30 per cent pay increase". In reality, and some nine months later, TDs were awarded 3 per cent. This attracted comment in at least one media outlet —"TDs to get a further increase on top of 30 per cent award last summer". In the event, the Government of the day did not to implement the 3 per cent increase.

In a former life, I worked as national secretary of the ITGWU, now SIPTU. It was my job either to negotiate or supervise the negotiation of the pay and conditions of every category of worker, blue collar, white collar and professional. I did not do my job by apologising for my existence. The fair comparison system usually determines pay rates. By any comparison with our colleagues outside the country, or with fair comparators inside the country, the basic pay of TDs is out of line with the responsibilities of the job in modern day Ireland. I am reminded that if I had stayed in my previous employment I would be earning roughly twice my current salary. If anyone wishes to discount the fair comparison system and link me to average industrial pay, it should be acknowledged that I work almost twice the average 35 hour week.

In dealing with the question of the kind of coverage that this issue gets, there is a great ignorance, even among the informed press corps, of the job of a TD. Two letters I got this morning are relevant. One is from a teacher in a school in an impoverished part of my constituency pointing out that they are trying to put together a programme to bring 40 children from the school to a Gaeltacht area for a holiday which they normally would not have. The expense would amount to about £400 per child. He said: "I appreciate that there are many demands on your limited funds but we hope that you will be able to make a contribution to this very well intended project". In handwriting at the bottom there was scribbled, "I am sure you get lots of letters like this but I hope you can make a contribution". The other letter was from the same school but from a different teacher saying: "Our school is running its second annual book week starting 20 April". He went on to explain that each of the well-known authors invited had to be paid for their time and "as the book week will incorporate World Book Day on 23 April, we are hoping that you can give a donation of £50 towards sponsoring an author". It is an extraordinary coincidence that these two letters happened to come from the same school, albeit from different teachers, looking for support for two very worthwhile projects. People who want to sneer at that kind of request and say that this is not the work of a legislator do not understand the job of a constituency TD or how difficult it is to not to co-operate with worthwhile projects in one's own constituency.

I am sorry that the question of basic pay for TDs is not being addressed. I do not think any number of allowances can be a substitute for that, and some of the allowances are undesirable because they threaten to put in permanent existence a committee structure that is not suited to this House. We have 166 Members and 30 Ministers, not taking into account the 15 Opposition Front Bench spokespersons. We do not have the number of Deputies in this House necessary to operate a committee structure as elaborate as the one we have now put in place. We have gone about things the wrong way in that regard.

I repeat my welcome for this Minister's initiative which will be seen in retrospect as mouldbreaking in terms of opening up the prospect of some back-up of research expertise for Deputies. That measure should be expanded for the Opposition because the imbalance about which I spoke as between the Executive and the Opposition is the most dramatic thing one experiences in not being in Government. It is not reasonable in 1998 to expect an Opposition Deputy and his or her secretary to respond adequately to a Government resourced by the entire Civil Service and the back-up that entails. That is an area that I hope can be developed in the years ahead.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I cannot give my support to this Bill. My dissent is based on the genuine belief that the manner in which all these matters are dealt with is flawed and clearly seen to be flawed. It would be easy to play to the public gallery and seek cheap publicity on this matter. I do not propose to do that. At the same time, the legitimate scepticism of the people on the pay of their electoral representatives is not without foundation and ought not to be ignored in this House. This scepticism arises primarily from the fact that Members of the House have had the ability to set their own rates of remuneration, expenses and allowances. That was always an unsatisfactory situation which was open to abuse, and even more open to the perception of abuse.

Instead of taking this function out of our hands and giving it to an independent body which would set rates for allowances, this Bill puts that power in the hands of the Minister. Lest there be any misunderstanding, I am not denying the need for the allowances provided for in this Bill. In particular, the need for extra secretarial assistance is felt by all Deputies. Why this is so is the question I must put. Is it not because of the clientelist system which has been nurtured by the political system in this State? Citizens have a right to efficient, friendly and speedy access to the services of central Government and local authorities. They are often faced with a wall of bureaucracy and, rather than remove the obstacle, legislators have preferred to treat people as personal clients who can be catered to rather than as citizens with rights. This culture dominates public life in this State.

The speed with which the changes in this Bill have been processed through this House stand in contrast to the long delay in the payment of the social welfare increases, such as they were, introduced in the budget. There is also the anomaly that thousands of people in the public service are classified and paid on a lower grade than their actual work warrants. Budgetary constraints prevent their upgrading, and again this blockage is in contrast to the ease with which these provisions are to be put in place.

I stated at the outset that I cannot give this Bill my support and have outlined some of the reasons that influenced my decision. I acknowledge, however, without hesitation the justification for a number of elements involved in the proposals included in the Bill and recognise their merit. My decision is not based on populist considerations but on the reasons I have already outlined. These elements must be addressed to ensure we have an accountable and transparent system that is open and accessible to scrutiny by all levels of society.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): I oppose the Bill because it is not an honest way to deal with the position the Minister considered had to be addressed. After the Buckley report recommended increases which Members of the Oireachtas thought were much too low, the Minister and his predecessor were besieged by Members seeking the introduction of wage increases under various guises. The Bill attempts to introduce a wage increase for Members of the Oireachtas under an assumed name.

The existing salary of Deputies is adequate. The average industrial wage is approximately £16,000 per annum at present, while a Deputy's salary is over twice that amount before tax. I accept that many Deputies work long hours. I work between 12 and 15 hours a day on average during the week and I also work at weekends. However, I receive twice the average industrial wage. I understand the Department of Finance announced today that certain recommendations of the Buckley report will be implemented. I am surprised the Minister did not refer to this matter because it is closely linked to the Bill. I understand the salary of Deputies will be increased by £1,000 while the Taoiseach will receive a massive £16,000 plus increase from 1 April. Ministers will receive an increase of £13,000 while Ministers of State will receive an increase of over £3,000. In terms of the struggle for survival of most ordinary working people, they are obscene salary increases for people who are already extremely well paid.

Ordinary workers and unemployed and poor people will react with great cynicism and anger to this proposed package of increases. This is justified in view of what they have been subjected to in recent years. Workers found in the past ten years that their wage increases were repeatedly hammered to an approximate 1 per cent increase in real terms per annum while the profits of their employers soared without hindrance. In view of the anger that exists regarding that issue alone, people should expect the Minister's combined package to be greeted with great cynicism and anger.

Given the huge level of exploitation wages in the economy and the hundreds of thousands of workers on extremely low pay, one can imagine how they will react. They will contrast the combined package announced today with the fact that successive Governments and employers have dragged their feet on the introduction of a modest minimum wage of £5 an hour. This is the basic amount necessary to ensure any type of comfortable existence for workers in today's society.

There is another difference between Deputies and ordinary workers. The level of accountability of workers in the civil service or the private sector to their employers is much greater in terms of supervision and discipline. I wonder what people make of press reports about high profile and high flying Members of the Oireachtas who apparently spend their time travelling round the world, cutting economic deals and making money. They do not attend the House often and yet their wages are not cut, although that would happen if they were in ordinary employment. There are swings and roundabouts.

Deputies should have just and fair allowances. Undoubtedly, serving a constituency is expensive and there are demands on public representatives. Deputies must respond to the range of problems people bring to their attention. These may be local or community problems, such as the scourge of heroin. Deputies who, like me, represent working class people are obliged to respond and this costs money. However, the current allowances cover this area.

Mr. Ferris

The Deputy's do anyway.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): My policy is to publish information for the benefit of my party and constituency about the money and allowances I receive as a Deputy and how it is spent on servicing the constituency. The current allowances are adequate.

The proposal in the Bill under which almost every second member of parties will qualify for an allowance is the most cynical stroke of all. Under the proposal chairpersons and Whips of committees and sub-committees will qualify for allowances. Will every committee now set up sub-committees with a chairperson and Whip in order to milk the system further? The proposal should be dropped and I hope it will be withdrawn on Committee Stage because it is a recipe for further patronage in the political system. The people involved will be nominated by their party leaders. The good boys and girls will be rewarded with this extra perk while others who are not so good will be punished. This system of patronage is discredited and should not be encouraged by the Bill.

A point was made earlier about the insecurity of Deputies' jobs. Undoubtedly, Members can be unceremoniously flung out of the Oireachtas at any time. That has been put forward as justification for the extra remuneration about which we are speaking. Ordinary working people face that prospect on a daily basis and they do not have extra lining in their pockets to prepare them. Because three workers in Ryanair stood up for their rights they were unceremoniously told by a vicious management they no longer had jobs in the company. Their nests have not been feathered even though positions are just as insecure as those of Members of this House. I would not be against legislation that would allow public representatives re-enter their former employments if they lose their seats, but that is somewhat different from providing allowances for Members in case they lose their seats. I do not believe people should be unceremoniously thrown out of their jobs, but teachers and others in the Civil Service already face that prospect.

The Government should rethink its policy in this area. I do not regard the genuine cynicism and anger of ordinary people as cheap or populist. They are correct to look with jaundiced eyes on the joint package being introduced today.

Mr. McCreevy

I thank Members for their contributions. I have had consultations with Members from all parties in both Houses about this package. I thank the members of the sub-committee of the Committee on Procedures and Privileges who met me some time ago to discuss this matter. While it was not possible to accommodate everybody or to include all the suggestions, I made considerable steps in this regard. As I stated at the outset, there would never be an appropriate time to introduce this package, but it is the job of politicians to make decisions.

As I said on many occasions in the House, if TDs belittle themselves and play themselves down, they cannot expect the public to hold them in great esteem. I do not know any person who attends the cheapest doctor or accountant in the town in which they live. We must take criticism on the chin. Irrespective of when we introduced this legislation, it would attract similar headlines. When I was in Opposition I stated that I would do something about TDs' expense allowances if I were ever in a position to do so. That is what I have done and I thank Members for their comments.

Question put and declared carried.