We now come to amendment No. a1 in the name of the Minister. Amendment b1 is related, c1 is consequential on a1 and d1 is consequential on b1. Therefore, we will take amendments Nos. a1, b1, c1 and d1 together by agreement.
Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial, Parliamentary, Judicial and Court Offices (Amendment) Bill, 1998: Committee and Remaining Stages.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. a1:
In page 7, subsection (1)(a)(viii), line 5, to delete "Leader" and substitute "Leaders".
These amendments are being introduced by the Government at the request of Opposition Deputies and Senators. As the request was made late today I regret it was not possible to introduce them earlier.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment b1.
In page 7, subsection (1)(a)(viii), line 6, to delete "Whip" and substitute "Whips".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment c1.
In page 7, subsection (3), line 28, to delete "the largest group" and substitute "a group having not less than two members".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment d1.
In page 7, subsection (3), line 31, to delete "the largest group" and substitute "a group not having less than two members".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill. "
We have been railroaded into introducing an elaborate committee structure that is not assisting the efficient running of the House and this measure will make that decision irrevocable. Not many years ago all the business of the House was done in this Chamber, but we now have a plethora of committees that is not surpassed in any Parliament in Britain or mainland Europe with four times as many Members. Of the 650 Members of the House of Commons, only a small number aspire to ministerial office or believe they will ever achieve it. Therefore, a number of them from specialist backgrounds or with specialist interests devote their time to particular committees with a view to becoming the chairperson in due course. We simply do not have the man or woman power in this House to service the array of committees that have been set up.
We have been railroaded into setting up this elaborate committee system by some of the more ignorant comment in the media to which the House has been subjected over the years. We have been criticised mainly by members of the media who rarely set foot within the perimeter of the House and we have responded. The system was also set up to meet the wishes of all Governments — including the one of which I was a Member — to give a chocolate sweet to the disappointed Deputy who did not realise his or her hopes of becoming a Minister by making him or her a chairperson of a committee. They are not good enough reasons to overstretch the resources of the House.
We can competently handle only about six committees and the system we are putting in place will make it impossible for a Minister or Government in the future to revoke the decision to set up all those committees. We should address Deputies' basic pay rather than provide allowances for them. I accept, however, that chairpersons of committees should receive allowances because of their heavy responsibilities. The Select Committee on Finance and Public Service has just spent four or five days dealing with the annual Finance Bill. It must be a record certainly in my time here — subject to correction — that not a single member of the press presented during the four and a half days when the annual Finance Bill was being teased out. This is the Bill that implements the measures proposed in the annual budget and which has the most severe and far reaching implications. Millions of pounds worth of decisions are made per line of some sections of the Finance Bill, yet not a single member of the press attended.
We ought not to be railroaded into putting in place this comprehensive plethora of committees. For that reason I oppose the section. Let us learn to walk before we can run. We have come from a situation where Bills simply had to wait their turn in the House. We can now process four Bills simultaneously while the Chamber is sitting on the Report Stage of a different Bill. The Government Whip is right in that more legislation is not necessarily better legislation. As Deputy Noonan has said, the Front Bench spokespersons end up carrying the can. We should pause on this as it is not the ideal way to address the questions before us.
(Dublin West): I too agree that section 5 should be deleted and the reasons enunciated by Deputy Rabbitte are correct. A further reason is that the Government proposes in section 5 that any changes in annual amounts of allowances would be made by order rather than come before the Dáil. That is a feature of many of the provisions of the Bill. That is wrong. It is being done to reduce publicity when extra increases are proposed. Any changes made should be brought before the Dáil for approval. It is not honest to stitch in a provision whereby, once the Bill is enacted, by Government decree various changes can be made in regard to allocations to committees and so on. That should not be agreed. All major changes should be proposed to the Dáil, not simply made by Government diktat.
I have some sympathy with the view expressed by Deputy Rabbitte. I have been in this House a number of years and I come from a position where everything was debated on the floor of the House to a situation where we have the committee system. I do not think the system is much better. At the end of the session the question is how many Bills the Government put through. I agree with what was said by the Government Chief Whip in the past and by Deputy Rabbitte that more legislation does not necessarily mean better legislation.
A disadvantage of holding Committee Stage in the House was that on the Finance Bill, for example, we probably reached only section 12 out of a couple of hundred sections and all Members contributed. It is dealt with somewhat better in Committee.
Efforts have been made by the Government to streamline the committee system to have a committee marking each Department. That was an improvement on the previous system. We have decided, for better or worse, to have a detailed committee system. My late colleague, Brian Lenihan, and I argued that because of the multiseat constituency and 166 TDs an elaborate system of 22 committees was not appropriate but that was not agreed. The matter will have to be revisited. The purpose of this section is to allow for some small allowance to members of committees who do so some rapporteur work. Consequently I cannot accept Deputy Rabbitte's suggestion.
The contributions from Deputies Rabbitte and Higgins are confusing the debate. The argument regarding the number of committees is ongoing. I doubt if two Members out of the 166 would agree on it. However we must accept reality and accept the situation that exists. These committees have been set up following much debate and officeholders have to ensure they work efficiently. The question is whether allowances should be given to these officeholders. The answer is a definite yes. Extra responsibilities are involved in the workings of these committees and an onus rests on them to ensure they work efficiently. I have no doubt that extra allowances should be given to these people.
In the previous Administration an extra place was provided at the Government table which involved extra expense but it was accepted that poor negotiations led to the creation of the position. At the end of the day it was accepted that it was necessary and it worked reasonably well. I am disappointed we do not have the full agreement on this section, though I am not totally surprised.
Question put and declared carried.
Sections 6 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill. "
(Dublin West): I received the Bill only yesterday but others may have received it earlier. I do not know if the majority of Members have read this section and I doubt if anybody understands it, apart from some civil servants. It provides for pensions for certain categories. The labyrinthine methods devised in regard to these pensions are incredible. It is more like an algebra lesson than a Dáil Bill.
Before it is passed on the nod, as is usually the case with Bills such as this, the Minister should explain the import of these sections. Why can such provisions not be framed in language that can be understood by everybody rather than in obscure formulas for calculating pensions?
As I explained on Second Stage, sections 12, 13 and 14 are complex. However, the principle is simple. 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 sections provide for the basis of the calculation of supplemental pensions which are payable to persons under the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act, 1938. It is a complex formula. It recognises the pro rata element of pensions so that if a person has five years and 160 days' service, the person will receive a pension for that length of service. Until now a Deputy or a Minister only received a pension for a completed year of service, whereas all other members of the public service received pensions for whatever length of service they completed. That is the purpose of these sections.
In addition, in the case of Members who might have served as Ministers of State and then as Ministers, the sections are designed to give recognition to the time they served as Ministers of State and to give that service a weighting in the calculation of their pensions. The calculations are complex but the principle is simple.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 15, line 29, to delete "a special secretarial allowance of" and substitute "a special allowance for research purposes of".
This amendment seeks to make the allowance a dedicated allowance for research purposes. I am not suggesting that because it is termed a "special secretarial allowance" it cannot be used for those purposes. The allowance addresses the major imbalance between Government and Opposition to which I referred earlier and opens possibilities in that regard. However, it should be expressly for research purposes.
I considered this matter carefully when the Bill was being drafted. There is already statutory provision for funding research in the party leaders' allowances and it would be inappropriate, and possibly unconstitutional, to duplicate that provision for Members. However, I accept there is a thin line between secretarial facilities and research facilities. I do not intend to impose restrictions on Members which would restrict or limit their use of the new allowance for either purpose. In these circumstances, I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment.
I accept the Minister's explanation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section agreed to.
Sections 17 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.
Question put: "That the Bill do now pass. "
(Dublin West): Vótáil.
Will the Deputies who are claiming a division please rise?
Deputies Higgins (Dublin West) and Ó Caoláin rose.
As fewer than ten Members have risen, I declare the question carried. The names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.
Question declared carried.