Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Jul 2001

Vol. 540 No. 2

Ministerial, Parliamentary, Judicial Offices and Oireachtas Members (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 2001: Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Legislation governing the pay, pensions and other work conditions is scattered over individual statutes going back over 40 years and many subsections of those Acts have been amended several times in the interval. For an interested person, chasing through the Statute Book to get to the bottom of even one issue can be a cross between hide and seek and a particularly tough crossword puzzle. It never is the right time to consolidate this kind of legislation and I will not take it on during the life of this Dáil. However, this Bill does incidentally tidy up some of those provisions by rewriting specific sections of the 1938 Act. There is unfortunately a cost of so doing in terms of Members' attention: it involves repeating word for word various subsections of earlier Acts which are not being amended by this Bill. Various changes are set out in different groups in the Bill but I propose to deal together with each of three major strands which run through parts of it.

The Bill gives legislative effect to certain recommendations of report No. 38 of the review body on higher remuneration in the public sector concerning the payment of long service increments to Deputies and Senators and the payment of an allowance to Ministers of State who routinely attend meetings of the Government. The report of the review body recommended that the salary of a Dáil Deputy should be set at the ordinary maximum of the grade of principal, standard scale, in the Civil Service and that the salary of a Senator should be fixed as 70% of that of a Deputy and that both should be revised for the future on that basis. The review body went on to note that long service increments are payable to principals in the Civil Service. One long service increment is payable after three years satisfactory service at the maximum of the scale and a second is payable after six years satisfactory service at the maximum of the scale. A principal entering the grade at the minimum of the scale would have to serve seven years in the grade before becoming eligible for the first long service increment and ten years before becoming eligible for the second. The review body indicated that the introduction by the Government of long service increments for Deputies and Senators would not be incompatible with a link to the grade of principal provided the service as a Deputy or Senator required to qualify for long service increments was comparable to that required of principals. The Government decided to introduce long service increments on this basis.

The review body went on to state that the introduction of long service increments for Deputies and Senators should not result in a situation where different rates of remuneration apply to Ministers. This situation could come about because the remuneration of office holders is made up of an office holder's salary plus the salary of a Deputy or Senator. Accordingly, the application of long service increments could result in Ministers who are Members of the same House being paid differently depending on whether they qualify as a Deputy for two, one or no long service increments. The review body considered that the principle that all Ministers are paid the same remuneration is an important one and that the arrangements for the introduction of long service increments should ensure a common rate of remuneration continues to apply to Ministers and Ministers of State. Likewise, it considered that their introduction should not result in other office holders being paid in excess of the rates it recommended for their posts

Accordingly, the Bill provides that Deputies will be eligible for one long service increment after seven years and a further increment after another three years service – the same provision is included for Senators. As drafted, service as a Deputy and Senator are counted separately for the purposes of calculating the qualifying period. On reflection, it would be more appropriate that service in the Oireachtas rather than membership of any single House should be the criterion. I will be proposing an appropriate amendment on Committee stage. Long service increments will apply with effect from 25 September 2000, the date of the review body report. In line with the Government decision on the phasing in of the pay recommendations of the report, long service increments will be phased in between 25 September 2000 and 1 April 2002. In keeping with the recommendations of the review body, however, ministerial and parliamentary office holders will be paid the standard rate for a Deputy or Senator, as appropriate, and will not receive long service increments for the duration of their terms of office, regardless of their length of service in the Oireachtas.

The review body also considered the position of Ministers of State who routinely attend Government meetings. There are two such Ministers of State – the Minister of State with special responsibility as the Government Chief Whip and the Minister of State to the Government. The review body considered that these Ministers of State carry additional responsibility which warrants remuneration additional to that payable to other Ministers of State and that they should receive an allowance equivalent to that payable to the chairperson of the Committee of Public Accounts and the chairpersons of certain other committees. The Bill provides that such an allowance may be paid to not more than two Ministers of State who routinely attend meetings of the Government and are designated by Government order.

I have also decided to take this opportunity to add the position of assistant party Whip in the Dáil to the positions in the Dáil and Seanad that receive an allowance in recognition of the important work carried out by the Whips in ensuring the smooth running of Dáil business. This allowance will apply to parties with seven or more Members in the Dáil.

One of the positions in receipt of an allowance is that of Leader of the Seanad. The Government has decided that the Leader should be treated for pay purposes as an office holder and that the allowance paid to him will become the salary attaching to the post.

The Bill also provides that Deputies, Senators, ministerial and parliamentary office holders and those holding positions that attract allowances will be able to refuse a pay increase if they should so chose. It has long been a cause of concern to me that Members of the Oireachtas who express their concerns about pay increases for politicians find themselves in the unfortunate position of having no choice but to accept those pay increases themselves. I am happy to follow the established Government policy of accepting the recommendations of the independent review body which, since its establishment in 1969, has made recommendations on the remuneration of not just politicians but also members of the Judiciary and top posts right across the public service. These recommendations have at all times been based on in-depth research and careful assessment of the appropriate position of the posts concerned within the general economy, but if any Member of this House believes that a pay increase is not appropriate, I see every reason for giving him or her the opportunity to refuse it. The Bill provides for this. A refusal will apply to a particular pay increase and further notice may be given if the individual wishes to refuse subsequent increases. An individual may later decide to rescind the refusal, but only from a current date – arrears will not be paid. If there is any Member who is unhappy with a proposed pay increase, now is their opportunity to say thanks – but no thanks.

As a result of legislation introduced in 1998, allowances are paid to the chairs and vice-chairs of committees, committee Whips and the chairs of sub-committees. Not all such positions attract an allowance, and different rates apply to different committees. A Government order will be introduced shortly extending the payment of allowances to all such positions, except where they are held by ministerial or parliamentary office holders, and providing for the same rates to apply to all committees.

I have accepted the advice of the parliamentary counsel that the legislation governing the pay of Members of the Oireachtas, ministerial and parliamentary office holders and members of the Judiciary would benefit from some refinement. This corpus of legislation, which stretches back over many Acts to 1938, is complex and the changes proposed by the parliamentary counsel will serve to bring greater clarity to some important elements of it. This corpus of legislation. which stretches back over many Acts to 1938, is complex and the changes proposed by the parliamentary counsel will serve to bring greater clarity to some important elements of it.

Under pensions, we have the Office Holder Pensions and Severance Allowances – sections 11 to 16 and 29; contributions to Houses of the Oireachtas (Members) Pension Scheme – section 27; postal facilities – section 33; general expense allowance for the Attorney General – section 35; and Transfer of Service for Members of the Oireachtas, Judiciary and Court Officers – sections 46 to 60.

I am also introducing a number of amendments to the pension and severance allowance regime for Ministers and other office holders. I have reviewed these superannuation entitlements and have come to the conclusion that a number of the existing provisions need to be amended to take account of the role and responsibilities of office holders and to bring certain provisions relating to spouse's and children's pensions more into line with modern practice. In addition, I am providing for the transfer of pensionable service into and out of the pension schemes for Members of the Oireachtas, Irish Members of the European Parliament, the Judiciary and court officers.

I have given a great deal of thought to the pension provisions for office holders and have decided that it is appropriate to make a certain number of chances. As Deputies will appreciate, the pension provisions are somewhat complex. Sections 11 to 19 provide for certain amendments to the pension and severance payments available to office holders and their surviving spouses and children under the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act, 1938, which I shall refer to as the 1938 Act while speaking about office holder pensions.

I mentioned earlier that the Bill provides that, instead of an allowance, the Leader of the Seanad will be paid a salary as an office holder. The position will be pensionable as a secretarial office under the office holders' pension scheme and section 11 provides accordingly by naming the position of Leader of the House in Seanad Éireann as a secretarial office for the purposes of the office holders' pension scheme. with effect from 17 September 1997.

At present, a former office holder who has the necessary service qualifies for a pension under the office holder pension scheme if he or she is 55 years or older. However, it is possible for a person who is aged between 50 and 55 to opt to take a discounted pension instead which takes account of the increased length of time for which the pension will be payable. I propose to remove the option to take a discounted pension and to reduce the minimum age for payment of pension under the office holders pension scheme to 50. Section 12 provides for these changes by amending section 13A of the 1938 Act. The office of the Attorney General advised that subsection (5) of section 13A of the 1938 Act be redrafted for the sake of clarity. Section 12 is, as a result, quite a long section but the substantive changes are towards the end of the section in the amendments to subsection (7) of section 13A of the 1938 Act and the new subsections (9) and (10) of that section. This change will apply from the date this Bill is passed.

I am reducing the minimum length of service needed to qualify for a pension under the office holders' pension scheme from the present three years to two years. Entitlement to maximum pension under the office holders' pension scheme accrues over ten years. This fast accrual reflects the responsibilities attaching to public office at this level and it is reasonable that the minimum period of service required to gain entitlement to a pension should also reflect the reality and the vicissitudes of life in political office. A person with two years' qualifying service will be entitled to a pension of 20% of the appropriate salary, building up to the existing 25% rate under the new office holders' scheme for three years' service. This change will apply to and in respect of all former office holders who have at least two years but less than three years' service as an office holder because I see no reason a person who was an office holder before now for at least two years but less than three years should not be entitled to a pension for that service if present and future office holders are to have that entitlement. This change is being implemented by section 13 which inserts a new section 13AA in the 1938 Act and will apply from the date the Bill is passed.

I am also making changes to the rules of the office holders pension scheme in so far as they affect an Attorney General who is not at the same time a Member of either House. Taking the case of an Attorney General who is a Member of either House, he or she is paid the same salary as a Minister and is pensioned on that amount under the office holders' pension scheme. He or she is also paid a salary as a Member and the service as a Member is pensionable under the Houses of the Oireachtas (Members) Pension Scheme. However, if the Attorney General is not a Member of either House, he or she is paid the same salary as a Minister and, in addition, an amount equal to a Deputy's salary. At present, that additional amount is not taken into account under the office holders' pension scheme. This is anomalous and I propose to rectify it.

Section 13, accordingly, inserts a new section 13AB in the 1938 Act which enables this to be done. This change will apply, with effect from the date this Bill is passed, to and in respect of surviving former Attorneys General who are entitled to a pension under the office holders' pension scheme. An associated provision is included in section 17 to allow a similar change to be made in the calculation of a severance allowance payable to an Attorney General who is not also a Member of either House of the Oireachtas.

Section 14 inserts a new section 13E in the 1938 Act which provides for an increase in a secretarial pension to take account of the new allowance payable to Ministers of State who regularly attend meetings of the Government. Payment of this allowance, which was recommended by the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector, is dealt with later in section 40. Section 18 enables the allowance to be taken into account for severance payment purposes.

I have also reviewed the provisions in the office holders' pension scheme for payment of benefits to spouses and children of former office holders. There are a number of outdated provisions in that area which I propose to amend with effect from the date this Bill is enacted. The existing scheme allows a pension to be paid to the surviving spouse of a former office holder only where the marriage took place before or while the person held office. This is a very unusual provision and I am changing it to allow a spouse's pension to be paid regardless of when the marriage took place. The change is in section 15 which, on the advice of the office of the Attorney General, rewrites section 20 of the 1938 Act in its entirety.

Section 15 also makes two amendments to the provisions for payment of an allowance to the surviving children of an office holder. At present, a child's allowance, as it called in this scheme, is payable only to the child of a marriage which took place before or while a person was an office holder. In future, any child. stepchild or adopted child of a deceased office holder will be entitled to a child's allowance subject to the rules of the scheme. The other amendment is that for obvious equality reasons, I am extending to male children the present rule that a child's allowance to a female ceases on marriage.

Section 16 inserts three new sections, 20A, 20B and 20C, into the 1938 Act. The new section 20A confirms the existing practice that a child's allowance under the office holders' pension scheme is increased in line with general pay increases in the Civil Service. The new section 20B provides that a child's allowance can continue in payment for a child's lifetime where the child is permanently incapacitated and the incapacity arose before the child was 21. The new section 20C amends the provision whereby a spouse's pension ceases when the surviving spouse remarries. This provision is common to public sector pension schemes generally. However, it would normally be accompanied by a provision that payment of pension may recommence where there are compassionate grounds for it. I am amending the office holders' scheme to allow the Minister for Finance to reinstate a spouse's pension which has ceased on remarriage where the marriage has been annulled or dissolved or where there are compassionate grounds for it.

Section 19 provides for the replacement section 31 (1) of the 1938 Act, which provides for the payment of a special allowance to a former Taoiseach who has not reached the age of 55, which was the age for payment of a pension under the office holders' scheme, and who has not applied for a discounted pension. Since I am reducing the age for payment of a pension from 55 to 50 years and removing the option to take a discounted pension, it is necessary to change the reference to age 55 in section 31 to age 50 and to remove the reference to a discounted pension.

Section 27 is a technical amendment to section 6A of the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Act, 1938, which provides for pension deductions to be made from the salaries of Members of the Oireachtas.

As it stands, section 6A is based on there being a single rate of pay for Members of each House. The amended text takes account of the introduction of long service increments, which are to be pensionable, so that contributions to the scheme can be deducted from them.

Section 29 repeals a provision relating to spouses' pensions under the office holders' pension scheme which was included on a stand-alone basis in the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Act, 1952 and which is now incorporated in the revised version of section 20 of the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act, 1938 which is being inserted by section 15 of this Bill.

As Members are aware, the provision of free postal facilities to Oireachtas Members under existing legislation is subject to the requirement that those facilities be used solely for matters arising out of a Member's parliamentary duties. I am aware there has been some concern on the part of Members in relation to the operation of the existing provision and, specifically, to the interpretation of the term "parliamentary duties". The case has been made to me that the existing interpretation of that term does not properly reflect or facilitate Members' needs in regard to their normal day-to-day usage of the free postal facilities. I acknowledge that difficulties have arisen in this regard, in large part due to the absence in existing legislation of a precise definition of the term "parliamentary duties". The difficulty is in deciding what precisely the term "parliamentary duties" encompasses. It is debatable whether one could come up with a satisfactory, comprehensive and workable definition as to what exactly constitutes "parliamentary duties" for the purposes of determining Members' entitlements to free postal facilities.

Having considered the matter, I am satisfied that it would be impractical to attempt to lay down in legislation detailed parameters on the use of free postal facilities. In the absence of a precise and workable definition of "parliamentary duties", it seems to me that the only practical alternative is to remove that phrase from the legislation. I propose, therefore, in section 33 to delete the term "parliamentary duties" from section 2 of the 1962 Act.

Section 37 enables the general expense allowance currently paid to all office holders who are Members of the Oireachtas to be paid to an Attorney General who is not a Member of the Oireachtas. The allowance is to meet costs necessarily incurred by office holders in the performance of the duties of their office which will not otherwise be reimbursed. However, existing legislation only provides for the payment of the allowance to office holders if they are also Members of the Oireachtas. An Attorney General who is not a Member of the Dáil or Seanad would not be entitled to receive the allowance. This anomaly is now being removed and the provision will be backdated to June 1997.

Part 10 provides for the transfer of pensionable service into and out of the Oireachtas pension scheme, the pension scheme for Irish Members of the European Parliament and the pension schemes for the Judiciary and court officers. Long-standing arrangements are in place which allow employees of public sector bodies which are members of the public sector and local authority transfer networks to transfer service when they move to another body in the networks. It has not been possible for Members of the Oireachtas and the Judiciary and court officers to transfer service. This Bill introduces provisions which will allow this and which will apply to Irish Members of the European Parliament because their pension scheme is based on the Houses of the Oireachtas (Members) pension scheme.

The mechanism will be that transfer of service will be possible between the pension schemes for Members of the Oireachtas, Irish Members of the European Parliament, the Judiciary and court officers, the Civil Service, bodies which are designated as approved organisations for the purposes of the public sector transfer network and any other body which is designated by the Minister for Finance under this Act. The detailed operation of the arrangements will be subject to terms and conditions determined by the Minister for Finance and those terms and conditions will take account of the enhanced pension accrual rates which apply to Members of the Oireachtas and the Judiciary and court officers. It will not be possible to transfer service in respect of which a pension has already come into payment but it will be possible to repay a lump sum or a refund of contributions paid in respect of previous service which a person wishes to transfer.

Turning to the individual sections, sections 46 to 49 define a number of terms and give the Minister for Finance power to designate organisations as approved organisations for the purposes of this part. Sections 50 to 53 set out the basic entitlement of Members of the Oireachtas, Irish Members of the European Parliament, the Judiciary and court officers to transfer service. Section 54 provides that transfer of service will be subject to terms and conditions determined by the Minister for Finance or, as appropriate, terms and conditions agreed by the Minister with a designated organisation. In determining the extent to which service can be transferred, account may be taken of differences between pension schemes in terms of the length of time required to earn entitlement to maximum benefit under a scheme. If the transfer of service involves an organisation which is designated as an approved organisation, the terms and conditions agreed between the Minister and the organisation must either provide for the payment of a contribution or set out agreed reciprocal arrangements for the transfer of service.

Section 55 provides that, once service has been transferred, it cannot reckon for superannuation purposes in the organisation from which the service was transferred. Section 56 prohibits transfer of service where a pension has already come into payment; it allows the transfer of service in respect of which a lump sum or gratuity has been paid or contributions have been refunded, provided the lump sum, gratuity or contributions, plus interest, are paid back.

Section 57 deals with the detail of applying for transfer of service under these provisions. Section 58 allows pension schemes to be amended to take account of these new transfer provisions where the authorities who are responsible for the scheme would not already have the power to make such amendments. Section 59 provides for the making of orders under this part and requires that such orders must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Section 60 enables the trustees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Members) pension scheme to make and receive transfer payments for the purposes of this part.

I will refer briefly to the remuneration and tenure of the chairmen and deputy chairmen of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann. In the course of the review of issues affecting parliamentarians, the question arose of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle remaining in office during the period when the Dáil was dissolved. The general assumption was that this could not be done because there was not during that period any Dáil for which his deputy chairmanship function needed to be exercised. The position became less clear when legal advice was sought. There is provision in the Constitution for a Ceann Comhairle to be re-elected to the Dáil without standing for election but there is no provision in the Constitution, legislation or standing orders to keep on a Ceann Comhairle who does not wish to be elected to the new Dáil. However, both the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach are members of the Presidential Commission which can be required to act during the period of dissolution. It is, therefore, constitutionally necessary to ensure that the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach are retained in office to ensure that the Presidential Commission which may have to exercise its function during a dissolution is properly and fully constituted. Since, under the Constitution, their position is taken by the deputy chairmen should they be incapacitated or unavailable, it is necessary to make the same provision for them. I commend the Bill to the House.

I welcome this Bill in so far as it seeks to address a number of shortcomings in the provision for parliamentary office holders and Oireachtas Members although it does not go far enough in a number of key respects. The Bill reasonably makes handsome provision for Ministers and the two Ministers of State who attend Cabinet meetings to be paid an additional salary of £11,800. I welcome the provision for the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and Leas-Chathaoirleach to be paid until such time as an election is held and accept the arguments outlined in this regard. The Bill also provides that the Leader of the Seanad will be an office holder, a long overdue provision.

The Bill refers to the provision of similar severance pay to the Attorney General to that which Ministers receive. There are also severance pay arrangements for Deputies. I have to declare my interest in this because I am a former chairman of a committee, but that is not the reason I am saying this. Holders of offices within these Houses other than the Ceann Comhairle, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the Cathaoirleach and the Leas-Chathaoirleach are not well provided for in this Bill in the sense that severance arrangements do not apply for chairmen, vice-chairmen or convenors of committees or the Opposition Leader in the Seanad. There are arrangements whereby Opposition Whips are paid in recognition of their having to work with the Government Chief Whip to keep the business of this House going. As we are making formal provision for Leader of the Seanad, some provision should be made for the Opposition Leader in the Seanad. I received some indication this will be addressed on Committee Stage and I ask the Minister of State to clarify that, as there are no amendments tabled yet to indicate that it will be.

Likewise, why should chairmen, vice-chairmen and convenors of committees be the only office holders for whom there are no severance arrangements? In other words, they have to take a sharp cut in pay when they lose office, which does not apply to anyone else? That will not apply to the Attorney General, as that has been corrected. The lack of such provision is unfair. Provision should be made for those office holders and I had thought that provision for them would be made in the Bill. I have given a great deal of thought to the effectiveness of this House and the arrangements for it and my views are largely spelt out in the Fine Gael Policy document, "A Democratic Revolution".

As I said yesterday when we were dealing with another Bill that has a remarkably similar title, which is somewhat confusing, we cannot improve the pay, conditions and back-up for some Members of this House without also taking account of the other side of the coin, the overhauling these Houses. It must be obvious to anybody who is familiar with the state of politics here that we cannot continue to legislate the way we have being doing and especially the way we have in the past four weeks. We cannot go on addressing empty seats as we are now. Legislation is being rushed through without scrutiny and I predict with certainty that many of the Bills pushed through under guillotine this week, last week, the week before and the week before that will give rise to serious problems later due to a lack of scrutiny. In order to give them such scrutiny we have to properly resource the House.

It is not provided for in this Bill, but the Minister gave some indication yesterday in his reply to the debate on the other Bill that Members of the House will be provided with extra staff. That is justified by the enormous weight of legislation introduced in recent years, which has imposed enormous demands on Members. I make no bones about this and the Minister admitted he was in the same position. I have been a Member of this House for almost 25 years and I have no way of keeping records because I have no staff to keep them. I have one secretary who has been overwrought and over-worked for the past 22 years trying to keep up with replying to the mail and answering the telephone. We have no one to photocopy or to do research. No other employment would operate on the basis on which we operate. There is no provision in this Bill or in the Bill we debated yesterday to confirm some provision will be made for that.

The Oireachtas Commission Bill will be introduced later in the year and I have a particular interest in it because it will give expression to my view that there is a radical need for parliamentary reform. Such a commission would at least set up a structure which would permit more dramatic and relevant reform than has been hitherto possible. We are living in expectation that the Bill, the heads of which we have not had sight of although I understand they have been approved by the Government, will be dramatic in the sense of the financial provision it will make for the Oireachtas.

This Bill, the Bill we debated yesterday, which I will call the Leaders' allowance Bill for shorthand, and the Electoral (Amendment) Bill do much in terms of the rights of parties in making provision for the funding of them. That legislation makes too great a provision for the funding of smaller parties which will lead to a splintering of the process. Under that Bill any party that gets 2% of the vote will get £100,000per se. That is a recipe for inviting all sorts of head cases including parties, such as the Monster Raving Loony Party, as I said yesterday, to run a candidate in every constituency. If a small party were to get 2% of the vote in every constituency, it would get £100,000 a year regardless of whether a member of it were to be elected. The deposits required to run candidates in 42 constituencies would be only a few hundred quid. A small party, therefore, could make such an investment and run, say, Peter Barry in every constituency, as some extreme Unionists ran a candidate in the North, get 2% of the vote and then get £100,000 a year. That provision is included in the legislation simply to provide for the Progressive Democrats for fear that their percentage of the vote might drop below 3%. We are using a very broad brush in this context. There should be at least a requirement that a small party must have a candidate elected to this House, to secure that amount. The provision in the legislation is too broad.

There is handsome provision for parties in legislation, but there is no provision in it for individual Members. We appear to have no rights. We have to do what the party leadership tells us. I have been saying this for years, therefore, it is nothing to do with who is Leader. Members are elected individually to this House. They have a duty individually to ensure they perform their parliamentary work. They have a right to be properly resourced. This legislation makes no provision in that respect. The Leaders' allowance Bill makes handsome provision for Leaders' allowances and resources to be made available to parties, but individual Members have no rights. If they are out of favour with their Leader, they are in trouble. That is wrong.

Likewise the provisions in this Bill pulls its punches when it comes to individual Deputies. I got a table this morning, for which I am grateful, outlining the pay rates for a TD, Senator, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, a Minister, the Ceann Comhairle, a Minister of State, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the Cathaoirleach and the Leas-Cathaoirleach. The figures on this table do not correspond to the figures in the Bill, which I am aware relate to different dates. Will the Minister of State clarify what is the current salary of a TD and of a TD with long service increments having ten years' service and when will it be equal to the salary of a principal officer as it is supposed to be? The Bill states, and these salaries apply from 25 September 2000, that the salary of a TD is £41,143, the salary of a TD with seven years' service is £42,455, and the salary of a TD with ten years' service is £43,767. The table I was provided with this morning gives salaries of £46,382, £47,862 and £49,342, respectively. An accompanying table gives the salary scale for principal officers. It states that the salary of a principal officer at the higher rate having ten years' service is £58,840 and the salary of a principal officer at the ordinary rate is £54,834. Will the Minister of State clarify whether the top level advisory committee, or whatever that pay body is called, has recommended that the pay of a TD with ten years' service should be at the maximum of the principal officer rate? If so, why is there a difference in the figures? I would like some explanation of the figures. What is the pay of a principal officer at the top rate with ten years' service and what is the pay of a Deputy? When will they be reconciled? What is the ultimate target for a Deputy's salary?

We are making provision today that the Leas-Chathaoirleach and Leas-Cheann Comhairle would be paid up to election day, which is only right. The Bill contains a measure which restates an existing provision that states Deputies will be paid one eighteenth of their salaries for the period of an election. I do not know from where that calculation came. Why are Deputies not paid like Senators? Why is it not acknowledged that their employment continues until their successors are elected? If it is a four week campaign they should get four weeks' pay and three weeks' pay for a three week campaign, both of which should be pensionable. We get a payment in lieu of one eighteenth, which comes to 2.88 weeks' wages. Will the Minister of State confirm whether, because of the inquiries of the Public Offices Commission, Deputies will continue to be permitted, as before, to use their parliamentary offices and secretaries during an election? That has been the practice since the foundation of the State.

An issue which I raised privately with the Minister of State is the plight of widows, and not just widows of Deputies or Senators but of public servants. It is funny that in the social welfare code as well as the public sector code we provide extra ordinarily badly for widows. A widow loses her spouse – it is a woman in most cases but a man may also lose his spouse – through sudden death, accident or illness and immediately she is expected to live on a quarter of his pay. That is an awful commentary, particularly in relation to Deputies and Senators, as everyone knows no Deputy can do the job without the active support and enormous sacrifice of a spouse. Yet if he or she dies that spouse gets one quarter of the pay and I know of related cases of severe hardship.

Similarly, under the social welfare code widows are living on something like £75 per week. They have no free schemes and they are paid £25 less than an old age pensioner. The free schemes are worth about £30 per week, so if they are living alone and have no eligible dependent children they are on a very low level of income. We seem to have a mental block against treating widows properly and I urge the Minister of State to introduce a scheme without further delay where, in the case of death of a Deputy, Senator or public servant, the full pension the dead person would have got had he or she retired would be payable to the widow for a minimum period of five years and thereafter for five years at three-quarter pay. It would a phased form of severance so that there would not be a dramatic loss of standard of living. It is an appalling gap and should be addressed without delay.

The Bill is very complicated. One would need about 12 other Bills at hand for cross-reference and it is just not feasible. We do not have the time or the staff to do this. The Minister of State said that section 18 enables the allowance to be taken into account for severance payment purposes. I think this is the allowance payable to the Attorney General but why are those severance arrangements not applied to chairmen, vice-chairmen and convenors of committees of the House? We are the only ones to whom this has not been applied and it should be applied to us. I understood that an amendment would be brought forward to address that issue and I am disappointed not to see it. The Minister of State should clarify this.

There is an arrangement for a special payment to a former Taoiseach who has not reached 55 years. That is interesting. It is not just to suit the present Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern, who is not yet 55 but coming up to 50 but is this a portent of the result of the next election? Are we making provision for a lump sum for Deputy Ahern? I say so facetiously as he is entitled to it if he ceases to be Taoiseach.

The Bill contains provisions relating to postal facilities and I wonder about those. We are removing the requirement that the use of postal facilities should be for parliamentary duties only, which opens up the possibility of abuse. What is the purpose of this provision? I have been in the Dáil for almost quarter of a century and I have no doubt as to what I can use parliamentary post for. It is for communicating with Departments of State, with constituents or others who write to me in my capacity as a Deputy or shadow Minister or for use when engaged in correspondence related to those duties or representation of one's constituency. It is not for Members to seek support by giving free envelopes to groups in their constituency which have nothing to do with parliamentary duties. This is going on and it should not. There will be occasions when a secretary paying a bill will put payment into an Oireachtas envelope by mistake but that is not systematic or deliberate abuse, it is an oversight. However, here is a danger that we are opening the door to possibly serious abuse and I suggest that provision be deleted. We should extend the reference from parliamentary duties to parliamentary or connected duties which would qualify in the mind of a reasonable person. I have reservations about deleting the term parliamentary duties from section 33 and do not think the Minister of State was right in his speech. I agree that the present description of what postal facilities may be used for is a bit tight and could be opened up a little but I would be happy with a change from parliamentary duties to parliamentary or connected duties.

It has been my experience regarding the postal facilities, particularly in recent years, that there can be significant delays in the delivery of Oireachtas post. There is a high incidence of these letters going missing or not being delivered. In my organisation and those of other constituencies there are constant rows about people not getting notices in time for meetings. Our rules require that people get four full days written notice. The notice may be sent out seven days in advance but it may not arrive until a day or two in advance or even after the meeting. It ends up with secretaries being accused of not sending the notice in time. Likewise, letters are sent from Leinster House on a Wednesday, in the expectation that they would be delivered by Friday, but are not delivered until Monday or Tuesday. I believe there is a case for taking the word "Oireachtas" off the envelopes and perhaps a franking system should be put in place. I have inquired of friends of mine who are postmen, and they admit that there are other postmen who, when they see "Oireachtas" on the envelope, will throw them into a corner. We have had discussions over the years with An Post and there is a significant problem. I have discussed this with the Minister for Public Enterprise and the board of An Post to see how we can ensure that parliamentary post is treated with at least the same priority as normal post.

When we come to Committee Stage I will ask the Minister to give us the current allowances payable rather than allowances from a previous date. In section 6, "the Chairman of Seanad Éireann is entitled to be paid a salary at the rate of £22,518 per year". Why is the salary of the Chairman of the Seanad not the same as that of a parliamentary secretary? I would have thought that the chairman should at least get the same salary as a Minister of State. I notice that the pro posed salary for the Leader of the Seanad is backdated to 17 September 1997, at £7,213 per year. I presume this is updated to at least the equivalent of the chairman of a committee. Why is the leader of the Opposition in the Seanad not provided for? He is uniquely left out.

Section 10 inserts a new section 11 in the Oireachtas (Miscellaneous Provisions) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Act, 1996. Subsection (2) of the new section states that "An order under this section may, if so expressed, have retrospective effect". I would like the Minister to tell us what retrospective effect it is proposed to have. Under section 12(a)(5A)(b) a Member will have to hold the position of Tánaiste for three years to get a Tánaiste's pension. Once again, this is a unique provision. If a Deputy is a Minister for two years he or she is entitled to a pension. If the Taoiseach holds office for only a day he gets a Taoiseach's pension. Why are we discriminating against the Tánaiste? The words “for a period of not less than 3 years” should be deleted. Why should someone who has been a Tánaiste for one or two years not get a Tánaiste's pension?

One would need a degree in algebra to understand the formulae in some of the following sections, so I will not tax myself by asking about it. Section 19 deals with new arrangements for the office of Taoiseach. I am not objecting to this but I would like to have the exact changes spelled out. Section 24 deals with the pay levels of Deputies, which do not correspond to the payment which we currently get because they have been updated. I will be asking for the up-to-date figure in each case. It is proposed in section 26, paragraph 3D that a person who is a member of Dáil Éireann on the day it is dissolved gets one eighteenth of the salary. Why are they not paid until election day?

The Minister mentions the possibility of a consolidated Bill, but it will not be published yet. I think it should be a task commenced by the Department to have one consolidated Bill dealing with all aspects. Perhaps it should be done in conjunction with the Oireachtas Commission Bill, which I hope will be introduced in time to allow a vesting day of 1 January 2002. As a Deputy, it is hard to know exactly what one is entitled to, or from whom one finds what one is entitled to. There is a myriad of different allowances under different headings. Personally, I do not know what I am paid. One is paid by cheque. Sometimes one makes claims and does not get paid, and only discovers that months later. One does not know who to go to. Maybe Deputies could get a table to say what allowances they are entitled to, so that they can have a clearer picture.

I welcome the Bill and pay tribute to the Minister for Finance. He recognises that Parliament, and Members, have to be properly resourced and he has not been afraid to take the decisions to bring this forward. The commentary in the newspapers, when Deputies got even a general pay increase, used to be anti-politician. That now seems to have stopped. The newspapers now seem to realise the need to resource parliamentarians properly. This Bill has taken courage on the Minister's part. It is something on which I completely agree with him. My views are spelled out in the Fine Gael policy document A Democratic Revolution in which we forcefully argue for the proper resourcing of these House and their Members. We still have some way to go.

I strongly believe that politics and Parliament need to be properly resourced and that people who make the system work, whether they be secretaries or staff in this House, Deputies or Ministers, need to be properly remunerated. They often have not been in the past, and I will return to that general argument later.

Having said that, I want to voice concern about aspects and individual provisions of the Bill. I do not agree with the provision for long-service increments for Deputies. The new provisions which we are making for pensions are pushing it a bit. The plethora of positions which we have created which are remunerated by salaries or allowances for people who service committees is excessive. My fundamental belief is that we should be paid as Deputies and that the basic salary should be a good one. I do not think that we should be seeking to create various allowances, which no one, including Members of the House, understands, to make up for the basic salary which in the past has not been great.

It is fair to say that in the recent past, and arguably even now, the basic salary for a Deputy, and certainly that of Ministers, is not brilliant. The fact that the Taoiseach will be paid in the region of £100,000 when this Bill is passed is not flattering. The Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance, the Minister of State and even Opposition spokespersons deal on a regular basis with captains of industry who are frequently paid multiples of that amount to run medium-sized companies. That the Taoiseach is required to give almost every hour of the day to running a country for a significantly lower amount is something on which we should reflect. We have nothing to apologise for either as TDs or as office holders in the case of the Minister of State when we examine the basic salary we receive.

Contributing to a debate of this nature makes me uneasy because we are being asked to do something which is unfair, which is to assess critically our worth.

The review body did that.

We can do it in two ways – as trade unionists seeking the best possible deal for members or by detaching ourselves from the scheme and looking on it as outsiders. I will try to do a bit of both but probably more the former than the latter. I accept what the Minister of State said, that the review group recommended the basic and more important provisions in the Bill, but some of the other provisions were not recommended or even considered by the review group.

It is right that we should pitch the basic salary of a TD at a Civil Service grade, and principal officer is the right one. I am not sure whether it should be the standard grade two or the higher grade one of the Department of Finance principal officer. A case could be made for pitching it at the higher level.

I welcome the provision in the Bill which makes explicit increases in the basic salary of TDs and office holders in line with Civil Service increases. Those have been determined by and large by partnership agreements and it is right and would be understood and appreciated by the public that TDs should receive increases automatically in line with what other public servants receive. Most of us are frustrated that the increases which will occur incrementally in the next 18 months have been reported three or four times in the past year in the press creating the public impression that we have received much greater and many more increases than we will. I welcome that we are providing for an easily understood system of automatic increases in line with the rest of the Civil Service.

We must make the case to the public why TDs and office holders should be well remunerated. There is the value of the work we do but the case should also be made that people who seek to be and are elected to the House suffer a considerable opportunity cost. In many cases they will lose their jobs, in others, they will at best stand still in terms of promotional possibilities in the job they held, and in others where they are professionals, they will be required to neglect their profession or stop practising. There is a cost in terms of job opportunities outside the House for people who take up positions as TDs and office holders, frequently for a relatively short period.

It struck me within a few days of being elected to the House when speaking to people who had been TDs for a long time that there is one thing almost all of us have in common, which is insecurity. I remember speaking to someone who had been a Member for 15 to 20 years and being amazed at what appeared to be a completely unjustified insecurity in terms of his confidence in holding his seat ad infinitum. Unfortunately, in the case in question, the lack of confidence and insecurity was subsequently justified by the 1997 general election. We are all subject to the will of the electorate and can lose our jobs and salary at very short notice. It is right the remuneration we receive should reflect that fact.

I have a difficulty with the provision for long service increments. The provision in money terms is not generous. It is about £1,300 after seven years' service and much the same after ten. The value to TDs of these increments is relatively slight. I have a problem with the principle. I do not see that colleagues who effectively do the same job should be paid differently. There are two colleagues in my constituency who have been in office longer than I have been and one who has been in office the same length of time. Without wishing to reflect positively or negatively on them, I do not see that those of us who attend the same public meetings and do much the same work should be paid differently. To turn it around, if we attend these public meetings, I do not see why the representatives of one section of the audience should be paid more than the representatives of another section. If I vote for TD ‘A', I expect him to be paid the same as TD ‘B' for whom my neighbour votes. I do not accept the principle that there is a difference in what we do.

Speaking from experience, it does not necessarily follow that people who have been Members for longer do the job any better. People who have been Members for longer manage to glide in a way people who have been Members for a relatively short period do not. I am not sure it can be said the normal considerations in terms of experience which might apply to jobs elsewhere in the public service necessarily apply within the House.

I have a problem with the pension provisions. To reduce the hurdle from three years to two and to provide for a 20% pension after two years is pushing it. There is a case for examining the pension system as it applies to office holders and TDs generally. There is an argument for the sound trade union principle that all service should be reckonable and should be related to the pay one receives at the time. Perhaps we should examine the integration of the general pension system for TDs with that of office holders rather than operating what are effectively two different systems.

When considering the issues in the Bill, we must reflect on others who make politics work, namely, the staff of the House and the staff who work for and with us. I cannot help reflecting on the fact that while, thanks to the Minister we have made progress in obtaining remuneration which reflects the job we do, our staff have not been as fortunate and have not been looked on as fortunately by the Minister. The secretarial assistants in the House do enormously valuable work and frequently work long hours. They certainly must have skills which the average secretary outside the House would not require. They need to be able to deal with queries on the phone or in person and with political propaganda and literature, and to be able to do a great deal of work on computers by maintaining databases and so on. They do a great deal of work, frequently over long hours, which is above and beyond normal secretarial duties. It is unacceptable that they should be required to work on the level of pay they receive. That is something which has been crying out for reform and change for many years. It is acknowledged by almost everyone in the House and yet we have been singularly unsuccessful in managing to progress that issue. It is unfinished business in the programme of modernisation of the workings of the House.

The pension system for secretarial assistants is arcane and beyond belief. Perhaps when it was introduced about 20 years ago it was not expected that people would stay working as secretarial assistants for many years. The scheme is extraordinarily ungenerous in comparison with other pension schemes. People can work for 20 or 30 years and still receive a very small percentage of their salaries when they retire.

One significant change in the workings of the House has been the committees. They have been a positive development. Their streamlining after the previous election has worked in that specific committees deal with specific Departments. However, we should not create salaried positions for or give allowances to people who serve on these committees. If I chair six, eight or nine committee meetings a year, I do not see that as taxing me unduly as a Member. There are many other Members who do a great deal more work as spokespersons or otherwise. I cannot help but voice the suspicion that what we have done is create positions which are intended as a sort of condolence to those who have not managed to achieve ministerial office, and I am not sure we should be in that business. The basic salary should be good and should include chairing the odd committee. I have great difficulty with the notion that we should make committee allowances pensionable.

A couple of other issues were raised during the Minister of State's speech to which Deputy Mitchell referred, one of which related to postal facilities. I have doubts about this issue because I do not think Members of the House should give free postal facilities such as envelopes to groups which may be agitating within their constituency or groups which may be organising work nationally, whether political or otherwise. This facility which is given to individuals should be used in connection with their Dáil activities. We all use the envelopes for party political activities, which is perfectly reasonable. However, it should not extend to those allowing others to use the facilities given to Dáil Deputies. I support what Deputy Mitchell said in that regard. Perhaps the Minister of State will give this matter further consideration.

On the overall cost of the package, it is normal practice in explanatory memoranda to set out the cost to the Exchequer. I am, therefore, interested in knowing what the cost is.

I support the general principle that we must remunerate properly those who make politics work. Politics is important and democracy needs to be paid for out of public funds. If we do not do that, we will be handing it over to private interests or those who can afford to do it, something we should not countenance. I am not sure that providing for a plethora of allowances which no one understands is the way to go.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Deenihan.

I welcome the major aspects of the Bill. On this occasion I disagree with Deputy McDowell in regard to the concept of incremental increases which I always thought should be in place in this House. This concept is in place outside the House in almost every walk of life. It should also apply here. I do not say this because it suits me personally, it is something I have believed since I first came to the House a while ago. As Deputy McDowell said, it is not a huge increase, and by the time it is taxed it will be worth much less. However, the principle is right.

In so far as the basic salary of Deputies is concerned – I have not spoken publicly about this issue for many years – we should not be ashamed to say that we should be paid a particular rate for doing a particular job. I am aware we do not evaluate our work and that this was done by the review body. The expertise of many other groups in society is also called upon. This does not just apply to politicians. It is true to say that for many years politicians were paid peanuts. For a time in the 1970s and during the early 1980s, almost any other career yielded a better financial return than being a Member of this House. Some politicians are afraid to speak out in this regard. When politicians were put on the same salary scale as principal officers there was a fair amount of talk throughout the country. Many local radio stations and newspapers rightly carried the story. Since then, whenever a Bill goes through the House which has anything to do with politicians' remuneration, people believe it involves an additional increase. However, this is not true because we are talking about the same increase.

At a more fundamental level, I recall being interviewed when the last increase was agreed. I was asked the straight question did I think we were entitled to be paid. For the 20 years or more since I have been in politics, it is not me who is being paid, it is a workable arrangement between my wife and me. My wife does as much work as I do because that is how it is in rural constituencies. I have no idea how things work in city constituencies. Like me, my wife works each day. Whatever we receive, therefore, must be divided in two. Whether that is a good return for the work of two people is another matter. I am aware many other Deputies are in the same position. Nowadays there are many opportunities for women to work outside the home. I do not know how I could remain in this House if my wife did not help me in regard to constituency work in particular. My remuneration as a Deputy is divided in two and whether that is a good return is debatable.

From travelling throughout the country to conventions and so on, it is obvious that there must be some realistic financial return for the huge input if one is to enter politics. No one caught me by the ear and asked me to go into politics. I wanted to do it and enjoy every day I am involved. However, very few people in their twenties and early thirties take a great interest in politics. We must ask the reason this is the case. We never had so many young people coming into the workforce and people were never better educated. There is now a vibrancy in the country which we all admire. In order to have that particular cohort represented in Dáil Éireann, it is important that they begin to play an active part in politics. Until recently no one in their right mind would have given up any professional job to come to this House because they would have lost a huge amount of money. I am aware there is an element of service to the community involved. No matter how cynical people may be, unless one likes this job no money would pay one to be here. It is against that background that I believe Deputies and Senators deserve what they are being paid.

I want to refer to the way in which widows or spouses of deceased Members of this House are treated. Years ago my mother was widowed when her children were very young. For whatever reason, society is not good to widows either in regard to social welfare benefits or under the Bill being debated here. I understand one quarter of the salary of the deceased will be paid to widows by way of pension. Imagine a spouse of a Member of this House with a young family. Until recently a quarter of the salary would have done very little for the person concerned. No matter what is done from a humanitarian point of view, widows should be looked after, whether widows of Dáil Deputies or otherwise. Generally speaking, widows should be much better looked after.

I agree that some type of ministerial pension should be available to those who achieve high office. It is a reasonable measure. Will the Minister of State explain the technical point about deductions for pensions after 20 years service? Will the deductions stop after 20 years? How does it relate to incremental increases? This aspect was unclear in the Minister of State's contribution earlier and perhaps he could clarify it for me.

If a constituent in east Galway writes to me in Leinster House on a Monday, I receive the letter on Tuesday morning without fail. It is an excellent postal service. However, when post is sent from Leinster House in an Oireachtas envelope to east Galway, it can take up to seven days to arrive. I do not know the reason for this and I do not blame anybody for it. However, I hope its slow arrival is not related to the fact that it is sent in an Oireachtas envelope. If that were the case, I would agree with Deputy Mitchell's comment that it might be better if the word "Oireachtas" were not on the envelope. It is a problem for the postal service but letters reach the capital much quicker than they leave it.

The news is too good. They do not want it to travel too fast.

People generally follow that path. They go more quickly than they come back.

I commend the Bill. Its provisions are necessary and many other areas also need to be considered.

I referred to the Bill during the debate last night and will expand on some of the points I made then. I welcome the Bill from which I will benefit. It provides the type of financial resources that will make Deputies and Senators more financially independent and more efficient in general. These back-up services are required to enable us provide a better service to our constituents and as legislators. The Bill is timely and I join other Deputies in complimenting the Minister of State and the Minister for Finance for having the courage to introduce proposals to properly resource Deputies.

I hope some of us will still be Members of the House, but it will particularly benefit the next generation of Deputies in the next Dáil. At least 30% of Deputies do not return to the House after each election as a result of a natural changeover of personnel. Some people lose their seats while others retire. We are preparing the way for Deputies in the next Dáil.

The Deputy will be there.

I hope so. The Bill is most important from the point of view of resourcing politicians properly.

Part 3 refers to the payment of long-service increments to Members of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann. This provision is most welcome. As a former teacher who was on an incremental scale, I appreciate its value in the context of compensating and rewarding people for their endurance and consistency. People who have been here for a long time will benefit more than new Members. Older Deputies have been here for many years because of their hard work and the service they provide to their constituents. They have been consistent over the years and should be rewarded for it. I welcome the provision. In many cases, the longer one has been a Member of the House, the more expensive it becomes because of the demands placed on that person.

I also welcome the extension of free postal facilities for Members of the Oireachtas. I divide my duties in politics into three areas. As a legislator, I participate in debates on legislation and in the past, I introduced a number of Private Members' Bills on my own initiative. I also participate in discussions on legislation under the committee system. This is one aspect of my work. Deputies are on their own in that regard. Deputy Mitchell said that, over the past five weeks, he has participated in debates on ten Bills without back-up facilities. He is a great parliamentarian, but he would accept that he could do a better job if he had the back-up services available to the Minister. We need more back-up services and expertise to ensure we fulfil our duties as legislators in Opposition in terms of pointing out weaknesses and anomalies in Bills. This is not happening at present and we must admit that, in general, we do not detect everything as matters go through the House.

In addition to their legislative role, Deputies are also constituency workers. On the basis of my interfacing with the people during the Tipperary South by-election campaign, it is obvious that constituents want to feel they can depend on their local representative. They want a connection with their representative and Deputies in rural constituencies who are under the impression that making contributions in the Dáil is sufficient to ensure their re-election are mistaken. One must be a hardworking constituency person to survive in politics. This takes a great deal of time. It takes many hours of endurance in following up and returning telephone calls and making inquiries. One must consider how a person's problem can be solved within the rules of, for example, the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs or the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.

This work takes time and there are occasions when, if one follows up a matter diligently, one can ensure it is resolved from within the system that may have refused the issue in the first place. Success in politics is a measure of the time one puts into it. In terms of constituency work, if one wants to be successful, it is most important that a Deputy follows up queries he or she receives. This also ensures that people get a fair deal from the system. However, secretarial back-up is required for this work.

At present, each Deputy has one secretary. My secretary works in my constituency because I carry a huge constituency work load. However, I also need a secretary in Leinster House. A proposal in that regard will be considered in a Bill that is due to be introduced in October or November. This area is most important. Deputies need secretaries in their constituencies and also in Leinster House to carry out research, handle telephone calls and follow up matters with various Departments. It would make a great deal of sense and cut down on much of the expense in terms of the cost of telephone calls, etc.

The third aspect is community work. I am involved in 12 different community projects at present. I am chairman of the fund raising committees of three projects, one of which involves an investment of £4 million while another involves investment of £1.5 million. As chairman, I am obliged to deal with correspondence and I am delighted the free postal service is being extended to projects which benefit the community and are for the public good. Until now people who used the postal service for voluntary work were obliged to pay for it themselves and postal costs could mount up over time. Community leadership is an important part of a politician's work. Politicians are needed to drive projects. This is particularly true of my constituency of Kerry North where the once buoyant agricultural economy must now be replaced. Not alone must politicians dream up projects, they must find the funding for them. This small measure will help politicians who use the postal service for genuine community activities.

But for the American interns who work in the House between September and Christmas and between Christmas and April under the IPA programme, Deputies would have no back-up service. I compliment the IPA on this programme and on the excellent researchers it provides. Several of the projects I have completed since I came into politics would not have been completed, or even started, were it not for American interns. I was recently involved in a project by a great north Kerry writer to reprint a book of poetry, originally printed in 1872. An American intern discovered the book in the National Library and but for her it would never have been discovered. The intern procured the only complete version of the book from Harvard University. Members of the Oireachtas should have researchers to do work of this sort.

We have taken care of financial resources and supports for Deputies. It is now time to look after our health. The gymnasium which has been proposed by the Minister of State should be installed. If we had proper health facilities people would work harder and survive longer in politics. Politicians would give a much better return to the taxpayer if they were fitter and healthier. I appeal to the Minister of State to ensure that the gymnasium and other ancillary health facilities are made available.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Joe Higgins.

I welcome the long service increments which are to be made available to Members of the House and I disagree with Deputy McDowell in relation to them. Deputy McDowell feels it is not fair that one Member should be paid more than another who is doing the same job. This happens in every sector of employment. Teachers, nurses, members of the legal profession and even workers in the private sector are paid increments depending on length of service. As Deputies gain experience they come to know the political system and give a better and more efficient service.

A Deputy who has served seven years will receive a rise of £25.23p per week and if he is lucky enough to survive a further three years he will receive a further increment of £25.23p. It would be a joke to say we are talking about huge sums of money. The increments are worthwhile and their introduction is a step in the right direction.

Pensions, particularly for widows, are important. The average service of Members of this House is 11 years. Members who have served 11 years are entitled to a pension of 11 fortieths – about a quarter – of their salary. The widow of a former Member is entitled to half his pension so that widows of former Members receive, on average, one eighth of the Member's salary. This is a very small amount. All of us who are active in politics know the important role played by spouses in political life. They are, in many cases, as busy as we are. Widows are not as well looked after as they should be.

I support the points made by Deputy Mitchell regarding severance pay. These matters need to be addressed. I hope the Minister of State will be able to do that, perhaps by way of regulation at a later date.

(Dublin West): This is a ridiculous way to process legislation. The guillotine is falling on an almost hourly basis and complex measures are being rushed through without proper examination.

Part 2 of the Bill should be renamed the gravy train Bill, given the extremely favourable treatment it affords the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Ministers. They are to receive wage increases far above what low paid workers in the public service would be entitled to under the restraints agreed in the, so called, partnership agreements. This is another example of the two tier society which the Government fosters at every opportunity.

While I am in favour of pensions I wish to see decent pensions for everyone in our society. Why are Ministers and Members of the Oireachtas entitled to more favourable pension arrangements than, for example, clerical officers in the Civil Service.

One would need to be a professor of algebra to understand the formula for the Bill's pension provisions. This is bureaucratic obfuscation carried to an extreme. One formula calculates a pension as follows:

AS =

ND × S1

+

(TD ND) × S2

TD

TD

with each of these letters given a definition. Why can a simple calculation of a percentage of people's wages not suffice?

The Deputy should read the Bill. If the formula was not included in the Bill the Deputy would complain about that.

(Dublin West): I am arguing for a simple, crisp measure which everyone, particularly the taxpayers who fund this could understand. This is an incredible, complicated method and one would need to be a professor of maths to understand it.

Carlow-Kilkenny): As it is now 1.30 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: “That the Bill is hereby read a Second Time, amendments Nos. 3 and 4, and the amendments set down by the Minister for Finance and not disposed of, are hereby made to the Bill, in respect of each of the sections not disposed of other than section 45, the section or, as appropriate, the section as amended, is hereby agreed to in committee, the Title is hereby agreed to in committee and the Bill, as amended, is accordingly reported to the House, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed.” Is that agreed?

Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share