I have got some additional information on section 23. This section covers only superannuation, that is pension, of the person concerned. If a person becomes a Member of the Oireachtas, his period as a Member will not qualify for pension purposes. It will not affect his other benefits such as a lump sum on death or widows' and orphans' pension. A particular case is, say, where a man with less than the minimum pensionable service becomes a Deputy or a Senator and, after a period which would have brought him up to the minimum, he becomes ill so that he cannot resume work. He would not get a pension because a pension is for a minimum period of actual service.
Horse Industry Bill, 1970: Report and Final Stages.
Bill re-committed in respect of section 23.
Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill."
Is not that very bad? Does not the Minister honestly think that is very bad? If I correctly understand what the Minister said, a man is elected to one of the Houses of Parliament and, because he has not been long enough in the service of this body, he will lose the benefit he would have got when he becomes unwell simply because he was elected to this body. Surely that is unfair?
There is this exception.
Could not the Minister do something about it?
The situation is that the pension is for actual service. There must be minimum service.
Why must the Minister prescribe for this new board regulations that apply to no other semi-State organisation? This is the thin end of the wedge. It may very well operate against other professions and organisations in the future. It is disgraceful to have this in what surely must be described as an excellent Bill. It is ludicrous for the Minister even to suggest, never mind write into a Bill, a provision penalising a person for offering public service to this country. That is nothing short of scandalous.
Speaking on the section earlier, the Minister recommended it for its simplicity in substitution for the more complex type of provision in other statutes, more complex types of provisions which would have given a right, if I understood the Minister correctly, to the person seconded to maintain his superannuation, a right which is not given to him under this simple provision. This simplicity seems to me to be effected at the expenses of some degree of misery.
He does retain the service he has already got in his old employment.
I am completely in the Minister's hands on this because I know nothing about the superannuation code. I understood the Minister to say that, in other statutes, more complex provisions existed under which persons when seconded were entitled to maintain their own superannuation. A person employed by this body will not be entitled to maintain his own superannuation. Could we not do with two more yards of writing to produce that option for an officer or a servant?
Those other cases dealt with the situation as it obtained before the introduction of the pensions scheme for Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Admittedly this is new.
If there is a riskier occupation in the world than that of being a Senator I should like to know of it.
I could tell the Senator.
The statistics show that Senator McDonald and some other Senators are very exceptional characters indeed. The chances of getting a pension out of this for me, at any rate, I rate as amongst the lowest of the possibilities open to me. If any regard is being paid to the superannuation to be got out of membership of the Oireachtas I think that is absolutely disgraceful, quite frankly. Everybody in the House knows perfectly well that it demands enormous ingenuity to get in here. I think we will all agree on that. It is a very difficult operation.
While this man is a Member of the House somebody will have to do his work in a temporary capacity. He will be entitled to no superannuation and he will have to leave that temporary work when the other man who has been in the House and enjoyed the House returns to work. The same thing applies and should not apply in the case of doctors. I do not mind saying this. This is an old practice which went on before Fianna Fáil came into office.
A doctor goes before a very competent board and is recommended for the position of county medical officer and gets it in competition with other very competent people who attend the interview. He is then elected to this House and he can employ a junior who has no rights but who has to do his work while he is in the House. The people in the area have to put up with the qualifications of that junior while the man, who had the great qualifications before the interview board, is in this House.
I do not see that this is relevant because the junior has no obligation to take the employment. He is lucky or happy to get it. I feel that politics should not be made a closed shop in this country and should not be made the preserve of the self-employed. Every worker and every professional person and even the unemployed—anyone who wants to have a go and come in here—should be encouraged. It is monstrous for any sane Minister of State to bring in legislation victimising people who offer themselves and are elected to Dáil Éireann. It is sharp practice.
There was one unemployed man elected to the Dáil.
I do not think it is as Draconian as the Senator suggests. Under the old dispensation a person in such a position, in order to maintain his pension position, had to take very serious cuts in his income. Under this arrangement that is no longer necessary. His pension status is merely suspended for the period while he is a Member of this House. I do not think it is as severe as Senator McDonald suggests.
When one reads it with subsection (a) it means that the board can fire him. Quite clearly and beyond doubt if, say, somebody with opposite views to the Minister was elected and served 7½ years not qualifying for a pension and served, say, nine years on the board before his term was up he could very well be fired and obviously the board does not have to give any reason. He can be victimised with 17 years service to the State.
The Senator is putting doubts in my mind. I would not like to see a Fine Gael government.
The question of wrongful dismissal is fully catered for in other legislation and ought to be. It is quite right. The board cannot just dismiss a man because they do not like the colour of his eyes or the colour of his politics either.
I should hope not.
If they attempt to do this they make themselves liable under other legislation.
I would agree with the Minister on that but I would ask the Minister again to look at the case we were discussing of a man who under this legislation is being put in a position in which he would not be put under legislation establishing other statutory bodies, where he has no right. At the sacrifice of a loss of income it is agreed to maintain superannuation benefit, a right which he need not exercise if the loss of income is too much for him. The Minister has given as an excuse for this that he will have superannuation rights under membership of the Oireachtas scheme. The Minister should view with the greatest suspicion any balance sheet or project of any person who takes into account as being one of his assets possible superannuation benefit to be got for membership of the Seanad, whatever about membership of Dáil Éireann. I seriously urge the Minister who is a fairminded man— the Bill is fairly drafted and October will soon be with us—not to press this at this point and to consider a variation of this section so as to preserve the right, even if it involves a very complex kind of section, a kind with which I am not familiar but apparently the complexity of which has driven people to the dubious simplicity of this section which simply has the effect of possibly doing injustice to some future Fianna Fáil TD or Fianna Fáil Senator and I would not wish that to be done to him.
I would suggest that since this measure is in a sense rather new, it should be allowed a trial period and if it is found to be deficient it can then be amended. I do not really see the pitfalls which Senators McDonald and FitzGerald see in it and I would respectfully ask them to withdraw their amendment.
Of course it is attacking the agricultural industry every time as this Government are blue in the face from doing.
That is not fair.
It is very fair.
As well as Senator McDonald and Senator FitzGerald, Senator Evelyn Owens made a very good case for this amendment and I felt the Minister was impressed by her case and also by Senator McDonald's and he agreed to have a look at it.
I readily confess that my study of this section was rather compressed but I respectfully ask the Senators to give this a trial period.
Question put and declared carried.
Bill reported without amendment, and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thought the Minister agreed to have a look at the Fifth Stage in October.
What does the Senator think we have been going through this Purgatory for?
Let the last words be agreeable.
I should like to thank the House for its co-operation.
Question put and agreed to.
Before I adjourn the Seanad I should like to wish all the Members of the House a happy holiday.
The Seanad adjourned at 7 p.m. sine die.