Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Aug 1973

Vol. 75 No. 9

Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Bill, 1973 ( Certified Money Bill ): Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Kenny)

I wish to apologise for the absence of the Minister, who is abroad, and on his behalf to present his speech on the Bill's Second Reading.

The remuneration of Senators, in common with that of Ministers and Parliamentary Officers and of course Deputies, has remained unchanged since 1968. Under the various pay rounds since 1968 other groups have had their pay increased on four or five occasions. The position of Parliamentarians calls out for redress and that is what this Bill proposes to do.

In bringing this Bill before the Seanad I am aware that the increases in remuneration proposed are likely to be subject to more criticism, much of it ill-informed, than the increases for any other group in the country would arouse. In the past one reason for such criticism was that the delay in making increases necessitated fairly substantial increases in the long run to compensate for depreciation in money values. The fact that there has been no increase in the pay of parliamentarians since 1968 means that once again relatively substantial increases have to be provided. There has also been criticism on former occasions of pay increases for parliamentarians on the grounds that they were free to vote themselves their own increases. There has been a call for the setting-up of some sort of independent tribunal which would determine the appropriate remuneration for Members of the Oireachtas.

The Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector were asked by the Government of the day in December, 1970, to examine and report on the levels of remuneration of members of the Government, Parliamentary Secretaries, Attorney General and Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann and the allowances of Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The report of the review body was submitted to the Minister for Finance on 11th July, 1972, and published on 9th September, 1972. Members are aware that the review body made a detailed study of the work of parliamentarians and also examined jobs in the higher levels of the economy generally. The outcome of this study was that they recommended substantial increases in the pay of parliamentarians.

These recommendations fell to be considered, however, against the background of the national agreement. This led to the announcement by the Government of the day on 27th October, 1972, that, because of the existence of the national pay agreements, it felt obliged to ask the Employer/Labour Conference to advise in relation to the extent to which effect might be given to the review body's recommendations on the basis of and for the duration of the national agreements.

A special committee of the Employer/Labour Conference was duly set up to examine and report to the Minister. In its report dated 22nd December, 1972, the special committee indicated the rates which would be appropriate having regard to the general increases under the 12th round and the national agreement, 1970. This Government decided, as I stated on 20th June, that the new rates of remuneration should apply with effect from 1st July, 1973 — the date from which the increases in social welfare benefits announced in the budget were to be paid. The rates set out in the present Bill have been determined, in the light of the special committee's report, on the basis of the increases that applied throughout the public sector under the 12th round and the national agreements. These rates for the most part, in so far as office-holders are concerned fall well short of the rates recommended by the review body. For example, the review body recommended £654 more for Ministers than they are going to be paid.

There is no doubt in my mind that the revised rates which the Bill provides for are entirely justified. I am equally certain that, having regard to the prevailing national agreement climate, no more appropriate revisions could be made.

A Deputy's job is unique in that he is at all times at the disposal of the public. Any person who aimed at a nine-to-five job would be well advised to give up any idea of becoming a Deputy. The Deputy has no claim to overtime pay and despite the fact that his job may require him to write thousands of letters on behalf of his constituents he gets no allowance for secretarial services. All expenses that arise in the course of the job by way of entertainment have to be met from his parliamentary allowance. I have laid so much stress on the Deputy's role because the Deputy's rate of allowance sets the standard by reference to which a Senator's allowance falls to be determined. What I have said about the Deputy's job applies to a greater or lesser degree to many Senators. I am satisfied that the revised rate of allowance provided for Senators in the Bill represents an appropriate measure of their due by comparison with that of Deputies.

The arguments I have used in relation to Deputies apply with even greater force to members of the Government. Because of their total commitments to office, the continuity of their business or professional interests is broken. A Minister is responsible for the direction of his Department and for the formulation of policy on those aspects of national life that are directly related to the operations of his Department. He has also the task of explaining these policies to the Oireachtas and the public. He may be obliged to travel abroad on official business at frequent intervals. Nowhere else in the economy is there a post, either at managerial or directive level, which carries greater responsibility or imposes greater demands on the occupant. Despite that fact a Minister's salary, even as increased under this Bill, will still lag well behind the remuneration of the top managers in commerce or in industry, or of the leading lights in the professions.

In common with Ministers, the Attorney General, who is of course a member of the Dáil, has agreed to refrain from involvement in any other business or profession for the duration of his appointment. It has been decided, therefore, that his remuneration and pension should be brought into line with the remuneration and pension of Ministers. The salary for an Attorney General who is not a Member of the Oireachtas is being dealt with in the same way as the other salaries and allowances covered by the Bill, that is to say, by the application to the existing rate of salary of the increases provided under the 12th round and the national agreements.

A further provision in the Bill enables increases in the allowances of Deputies and Senators and in the salaries of Parliamentary office-holders to be granted in future by way of Government Order instead of by Act of the Oireachtas. The amending provision requires the Government to lay before the Dáil a draft of any such order and if the Dáil disapproves of the draft order within 21 sitting days the order shall not be made. The essence of parliamentary control is, therefore, being maintained. In a situation where Members' remuneration is affected by national pay agreements it is clearly desirable that the delays which take place between the decision to introduce legislation and the final passing of the legislation should be avoided. There is no good reason why increases in remuneration of Members of the Oireachtas should be subject to obstacles which are not placed in the way of any other section of the community.

This Bill also provides for a substantial increase in the rates of allowances paid by way of contribution towards the secretarial and research expenses of the Opposition parties represented in Dáil Éireann. The allowance payable to the current Opposition party will be £25,000, an increase of 66? per cent on the current figure of £15,000. Up until 1968 the allowance paid was intended to help towards meeting the secretarial expenses only of the Opposition. The 1968 Amendment Act provided for an increase in the provision for secretarial expenses and, also, for the first time for a contribution towards the cost of research and administrative services. This Bill follows that precedent.

The Bill also provides for the first time, for the payment of allowances to the leaders of the Government parties. In their case, however, since the provision of research and administrative facilities does not arise for the Government parties in the same way as for the Opposition, the appropriate rate of allowance is being fixed, in any particular case, at 40 per cent of the rate payable to the leaders of the Opposition. The Civil Service can, of course, be relied upon to provide the Government with the necessary backing in research.

The remuneration of Members of the Oireachtas has not been increased since 1968. The increases now proposed are in line with the increases given to public servants generally under the 12th round and the national agreements. For these reasons, I think that it will be generally accepted that the increases provided for in the Bill are entirely justified and I recommend the proposals in the Bill to the House.

Mr. Lenihan

I hope that the Seanad will not get into the same sort of parliamentary haggle or hassle as the Dáil got itself entangled in last week. This is a reasonably good Bill but it had to be wrung out of the Government over long hours of debate in the Dáil. The remuneration increases for Deputies, Senators and Ministers are less than those recommended by the Employer/Labour Conference in regard to their back-dating. However, the figures are on all fours with the figures recommended by the Employer/Labour Conference. The Employer/Labour Conference recommended that the increases would be paid as from 1st January and this recommendation has been ignored. There is an argument as to whether it was a recommendation, but that is merely a quibble. The reality is that it was a recommendation. It was ignored and in the interests of politicking the increases have been limited to 1st July of this year. I would describe this as petty political play-acting to so limit the time from which the increases operate and I will say no more about that.

It is important, if the Employer/ Labour Conference is to have credibility both with employers and employees, that whatever recommendations emerge from the Employer/ Labour Conference should be acknowledged and adopted immediately and in full, without variation. The whole basis of the national pay agreements, which we have initiated successfully since December, 1970, relies on the Employer/Labour Conferences being strengthened and on the various agencies of the Labour Court being strengthened, and it is on the respect and regard for these mechanisms that the pay agreement ultimately depends.

There is an erosion of that principle in not following to the full the recommendations of the Employer/Labour Conference in regard to our own remuneration. Political play-acting by limiting the time of operation of the remuneration has resulted in a very real erosion of the authority of the Employer/Labour Conference. This authority needs to be upheld to the complete letter of the law. We will need this authority in the coming months to ensure that the third pay agreement is successfully negotiated and, when negotiated, is successfully upheld and maintained.

There is one matter I should like to mention which is omitted from the Bill. In the other House the Minister for Finance said he had under consideration the question of parity in regard to Deputies' pensions and Deputies' widows' pensions. This matter is not included in the Bill and it is a matter in which we through our own lack of moral courage are lagging behind the rest of the community. Throughout the public service and industry parity in regard to pensions is an acknowledged feature of pension rights. When pensions granted in a particular year are eroded through the natural passing of time and through an erosion in the value of money, they are regularly upgraded in accordance with the rise in the cost of living or in accordance with the equivalent pay on salary scales operating in that same employment at that particular time. As in the case of our own remuneration, here again, through lack of moral courage, we are lagging behind the rest of the community.

I should like to get an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary, who I know would be sympathetic in a matter of this kind, that the promise made by the Minister for Finance in the course of the Dáil debate will be honoured and that even though there is a very real omission in this Bill in that respect that omission will be remedied as soon as possible in another piece of legislation. The merit of having pensions for retired Deputies and their widows put on a parity basis is easily recognisable. Deputies' widows — in some cases widows for 20 years — have been living on pittances although their husbands gave a lifetime of service both in the Dáil and the Seanad. This deserves recognition. There is not a great deal of money involved and it would merely involve stepping up the State contributions to the existing fund to which we all contribute. I am not aware of what mechanism would be adopted but it is a matter requiring immediate investigation. This is an elementary right enjoyed right across the board by all sections of the community who are in insurable or continuous employment.

The third matter which got everybody into a tangle in the Dáil concerned the question of the allowance for the Opposition. The Government made an elementary blunder in not including this matter in the Bill as originally framed. It is no harm to ascribe the word "blunder" to a Government that is claimed to be a Government of all talents when in fact they have shown themselves on a number of occasions to be guilty of the most appalling incompetence. Not alone was this matter not included in the original Bill but a whole series of fantastic amendments, which could not stand up to examination, were introduced. Eventually, as the Bill finally emerged last Friday, it went right back to the formula as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in his opening speech on the debate in the very first instance.

In opening the debate after the Minister introduced his Bill, the Leader of the Opposition made his speech simply on the basis of the provisions that existed for an Opposition allowance and suggested that that be raised in accordance with the percentage increases which had been given over the years since a Fianna Fáil Government first introduced the principle of an Opposition allowance in 1938. I might mention, for the record, that first of all it was Fianna Fáil in Government that introduced the principle of an allowance for the Opposition. We, as a Government, in benefit of the Opposition raised this allowance in 1947, in 1960, and in 1964. In 1968 we raised it substantially, from £5,000 to £15,000, which was the highest percentage increase ever granted, and, in the interests of making democracy function, introduced the principle of having this £15,000 cover not just secretarial facilities, which it had been until then designed to cover, but also to cover the research facilities which are so essential if an Opposition is to function properly without the Civil Service back-up. It was for that reason that the then Minister for Finance in 1968 raised the amount of the allowance for the Opposition from £5,000 to £15,000. Members of the Opposition can argue that between 1968 and 1973 they utilised that money to good effect.

Over the years since 1938 having dealt as a Government generously with this matter — and dealt with it particularly generously in 1968 — we find in 1973 a Bill emerging in which there is not a single mention of this matter. In that Bill it is proposed to increase Members' remuneration and Ministers' remuneration very substantially but there is no provision made for the basic research facilities and research assistance without which any Opposition cannot function. It shows a complete ignorance of how Parliament functions and the importance of having an effective Opposition.

The Leader of the Opposition in the Dáil made the point quite clear — again it took a long time to percolate through to the Minister for Finance because of his unfortunate obstructive attitude in the Dáil — that this increase was not being sought merely for secretarial allowances to Deputies. The amendments which the Minister for Finance brought in and which were subsequently withdrawn — I have no doubt at the dictation of the Taoiseach — showed how small the mind was through which the Taoiseach was seeking to percolate his point of view in that the amendments showed quite clearly that the Minister for Finance was thinking in terms of secretarial assistance only. The whole purpose of the 1968 Bill, in raising the Opposition's allowance from £5,000 to £15,000, was not just merely to provide extra secretarial assistance for Deputies to write letters but to provide the basic research back-up and information service which is required for every Opposition Member to make his or her proper speech in the Dáil or Seanad and to make his or her proper investigation into the basic facts and details behind Government policy.

Those amendments were subsequently withdrawn after a long debate lasting into the early hours of Friday morning. They were withdrawn very sensibly, because, first of all, they were totally impracticable and were shown to be so; and, secondly, they showed a complete lack of knowledge and appreciation of or an unwillingness to appreciate the fact that this allowance to the Opposition is not concerned with Deputies' allowances in regard to secretarial assistance. Every Member of every political party is paying substantially to his political party to provide such a service. Some of this Opposition allowance will undoubtedly go towards the provision of secretarial assistance but the great weight of it will go towards the provision of the proper research, information and investigation back-up service that is necessary for an Opposition to function properly, as against the Government that can function with that service available to them from the Civil Service.

Eventually — I give credit here to the Taoiseach — reason prevailed last Friday after a very unedifying performance by the Government, and what was sought by the Leader of the Opposition at the start of the debate in the Dáil was given in a simple, clear and un-equivocable manner. The allowance of £15,000 was increased to £25,000. We sought £30,000 and £25,000 was given. We acknowledge it. It is a smaller percentage increase by far than the percentage increase given to the Opposition in 1968. The point of view we made was acknowledged eventually on Friday after a very undignified display by the Government, a display of incompetent administration and a display of incompetent running of Parliament where the Dáil sat into the early hours and the Seanad could not sit for many hours. Eventually, a very simple amendment was made which we see here now. That matter could have been settled in one hour at most on the first day of the debate. By doing so all of us could have avoided the type of comments that have been made by some people in the media about the matter.

I welcome the Bill as it has now emerged and would suggest, regardless of what Government are in power, that in future when we are arranging matters of this kind we should do them with a slightly greater degree of competence and with a lot less ineptitude so that we can convey to the public that we are about our business in a proper way in this House. We certainly did not convey that impression by the way in which we went about our business in the Dáil during this debate. The way we go about our business is ultimately the responsibility of the Government. If the business of the Houses of the Oireachtas is mismanaged by the Government and the Opposition have to point this out to them, the Opposition get involved in the tangle as well; but the tangle should not have been allowed to develop in the first place. All the trouble and the odium that was incurred was directly the result of the mismanagement of this Parliament's business by the Government in the first instance. The very simple, elementary increase recommended by the Leader of the Opposition at the opening of the debate was eventually granted. All of that could have been done by either the Committee of Procedure and Privileges or by a simple open response to the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition at the start of the Second Reading debate in the Dáil. What emerged last Friday could have emerged within one hour of the Minister for Finance introducing this Bill in the Dáil.

Every Member of the Seanad knows in his heart of hearts that what I am saying is totally true. Let us all make a resolution that this type of thing will not happen again. In particular, I would appeal to the Government to manage their business in a better way, otherwise their talents may become slightly tarnished in the public mind.

Mr. Russell

There is a lot in what Senator Lenihan has said. Most Members of the House would be in general agreement with his remarks. Certainly, his co-operative, sensible and constructive attitude is a complete contra-distinction to what we have heard and read about in the other House during the week. One must naturally allow for a certain amount of partisanship on behalf of Senator Lenihan. That is to be appreciated. One of the reasons why this unfortunate hiatus occurred in the other House was the fundamental fact that the members of Parliament generally have been too timorous and too belated in looking at their own salaries and the conditions under which Deputies and Senators operate. They have nobody to blame but themselves in that regard. The fact that the Bill before us today proposes that increases in salaries and changes in the conditions of legislators can take place at reasonably quick intervals is a tremendous improvement on the procedure heretofore. I should like to commend the Minister for bringing in the provision that increases in salaries can in future be made by order of the House rather than by introducing Bills such as that before us today.

Perhaps we are over-sensitive about the question of increases in salaries of Members of the Oireachtas. The public are becoming more aware of the necessity to pay their public representative better. They are also becoming more aware of the need to have representatives of the proper calibre. The day of the silent Deputy or Senator who formerly occupied the position of a glorified messenger boy for his constituents is rapidly passing. Particularly among the younger people today in the electorate, those with votes at 18 years of age and over, there is a rising demand that not alone must we pay our Deputies and Senators adequately but also that we must demand a standard from these gentlemen that would be in accordance with the salaries they are being paid and, more important, in accordance with the responsibilities of their positions.

As the Parliamentary Secretary said in his introductory speech, Deputies and Senators and men who go into public life generally must make considerable sacrifices. The whole-time Deputy or Minister even to a greater extent must make a considerable sacrifice as regards his profession, his business or his farm. He must be paid an adequate remuneration to compensate for the risks he is taking. Everybody would agree that politics is an insecure profession at the best of times. Having regard even to that factor of insecurity, there is an even more important factor and that is the fact that if we want to get the best men in the Dáil and Seanad they must at least be paid salaries comparable to those in industry and the professions today. That is a fact of life. It is one that is becoming more and more appreciated by the general public. For that reason I do not think we should be over-sensitive about the question of the revision of Deputies' or Senators' salaries at reasonable intervals in the years. It should go hand-in-hand with the remuneration increases in other sectors of the economy.

I do not think Senator Lenihan should boast too much about the increase in the payment to the Opposition given in 1968 from £5,000 to £15,000. I would regard that as a delayed operation and something that should have been done years before that and a belated recognition of the principle that the Opposition parties require not only secretarial assistance but also research and information services. That this necessity was realised in 1968 is a criticism of the fact that the then Fianna Fáil Government did not appear to realise until five years ago that an Opposition in order to be effective and efficient must have an allowance that is adequate to supply them with research and information services. It was a belated recognition even though it was a very welcome one. The fact that the sum was increased three-fold is not a valid argument for increasing the remuneration payable to the Opposition party or parties at this stage three-fold again. The increase suggested by the Minister of some 66? per cent is a very generous figure in the circumstances and in a way breaches the 37 per cent suggested by the Employer/Labour Conference.

Some play has been made about the date of retrospection. Reading between the lines of Senator Lenihan's contribution, I thought he admitted there was room for two interpretations. The Opposition party in the Dáil took the point of view very strenuously that it should be retrospective to January 1st. The Minister and some of the Government spokesmen took a different view. In all the circumstances and having regard to the date on which we decided to pay the less well off sections of our community, 1st April was a fair date. I do not think we should cavil at that.

The general question of research and information facilities for Opposition and, indeed, for Government Deputies and Senators is one I am glad to see being recognised. It is long overdue. There was a feeling that the Opposition only needed to be provided with research and information facilities. But the back-bench Government TD is in just as isolated a position as an Opposition TD in regard to having these very necessary facilities. It is proper to recognise that fact also. All TDs should be equal in regard to their needs and the necessity to have these facilities. It should not be just a question of giving the Opposition Deputies extra remuneration to provide these facilities. The back-bench Government Deputy is in exactly the same position. If he is going to retain his seat he must be in a position to have these facilities at his elbow.

I read through some of the Dáil debates. I would agree with Senator Lenihan that they are most unedifying reading. It is not true to say that only the Government Deputies were unedifying in their behaviour. On all sides of the House, I am sorry to say, discredit was brought to the Oireachtas. The whole thing was a most unedifying spectacle. The impression gathered by the public was that the Opposition party were adopting an Oliver Twist attitude in the matter. I do not believe that is fundamentally true but that is the impression among the public. They were dissatisfied with what they were getting. They were kicking up a row and wanted a lot more. The debate was never lifted on to a plane in which it could be looked at coldly and logically so that the public could see that here were public representatives rightly concerned about their remuneration and that they would have the necessary facilities to serve the public better. It never got on to that plane. People I have spoken to of all political persuasion regarded it as a most unedifying performance. It is a sad reflection on the other House. I want to commend Senator Lenihan for adopting a completely different and more responsible approach. All the Senators on this side of the House would join with me in that commendation.

The words "traditions" and "principles" were hurled from side to side in the other House during the course of that acrimonious debate. In the matter of salaries, remuneration and research facilities, you cannot talk about traditions and principles. The hard fact is that if you do not pay a TD enough money you will not get the right man. There should be no squeamishness about looking at it from that point of view. If this means breaking what I would regard as previous practices which seem to have been confused with principles, we should not hesitate to do that. If in the years ahead it is necessary to upset the present arrangements which are now generally accepted, we should not hesitate either, not only in the interest of the Dáil and Seanad but more particularly in the interests of the country so as to ensure an efficient and proper administration.

This Bill will have our full support. It is a step in the right direction. I hope when the necessity again arises to give our TDs and Senators better remuneration that it will be done in a more dignified manner. Talking about TDs and Senators, as Senator Lenihan rightly said, we should remember the dependants of TDs. They share their husbands' anxieties in life. Many TDs' wives do not get the credit they deserve. They do a great deal of work. They look after the family and quite often a business as well. This work does not get any recognition. The only way in which we can recognise their worth to the community is to ensure that if anything happens to the breadwinner, the Senator or TD they will be looked after in the best possible manner by the State.

Mrs. Robinson

The Seanad is now being given an opportunity to discuss the Bill raising the salaries of Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas and of the Government which had such a troubled passage through the Dáil. I note with interest the defensive attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary in bringing this Bill before the Seanad. He says in the third paragraph:

In bringing this Bill before the Seanad, I am aware that the increases in remuneration proposed are likely to be subject to more criticism, much of it ill-informed, than increases of any other group in the country would arouse.

We ought to ask ourselves why this should be the case; why, when they appear to be justifiable on economic grounds, there should be such a defensive attitude to raising the salaries of Parliamentarians and Members of the Government, particularly when these salaries have been considered by a review board and the Employer/Labour Conference. One of the great deficiencies in the debate which took place in the Dáil — I hope we will not have the same limited debate here — is that this question was not asked in sufficient depth. Why is there such resentment among the public at raising the salaries of parliamentarians and of members of the Government? This is a fundamental question. We must not blind ourselves to the fact that there is a good deal of criticism, ill-informed or not, and a feeling of malaise; a feeling that the Parliament is not fulfilling an adequate role in the latter part of the 20th Century.

I should like to make it clear that I fully support those who emphasise the importance of parliamentary democracy, the necessity to pay people who are forming part of the democratic forum an appropriate salary and to give them the necessary resources for research, information and the necessary secretarial back-up. This approach is essential, but at the same time we cannot avoid the more serious question of why there is this criticism and resentment; why there is the feeling that, once again, Deputies and Senators are looking for more money and they are not justifying such an increase. This is the question we must ask ourselves. Are we justifying our roles as parliamentarians at this point of time in Irish life? If not, in what way can we perform better in return for getting better salaries and facilities.

I should like to look first of all at the different roles of Deputies and Senators. Deputies consider that they work a very long working day, that their wives work for a large part of the time without any recognition or remuneration and that the public ought to be more satisfied. Perhaps the reason there is not satisfaction but continued resentment is that a large part of the time Deputies are not doing what they should be doing. They have misconceived their role. In Ireland we have condoned a system of parliamentary life which is not adequate. Deputies spend far too much time as local grievance men, answering letters from constituents, performing a role of writing to Departments on behalf of constituents and very largely building up a local graft system in some circumstances. This type of role is bad for the political health of the country. It is wrong that people round the country think that they can only get whatever they are looking for through their local Deputy. This is not the proper role of Deputies.

Deputies have a two-fold function, a representative and a legislative function. The first function is that of representation of their constituents. It involves being in touch with their constituents, to represent them in Parliament by voicing their views, knowing the particular local interests and being aware of the particular needs of the community. Secondly, there is the role of legislating. Far too much of Deputies' time is diverted to an activity which ought to be met by other mechanisms. Far too little time is devoted to what we have heard Senators Lenihan and Russell speak about, and that is research and analysis of legislation going through. There is very little research or analysis of legislation going through either House of this Parliament, as we are all too well aware.

Deputies should not be asked to perform the local role of advocate to the various Departments on behalf of their constituents, of trying to redress local grievances to particular individuals. We ought to build better mechanisms which are not subject to political abuse or to this danger of graft. These mechanisms would be very easy to institute. For example, if we had a proper system of citizens' advice bureaux it would meet a lot of the present workload of Deputies. It would give the people impartial, independent advice and would prevent them feeling that the sole solution to their problems was in the hands of the local politician. We should immediately build up such a system of citizens' advice bureaux.

We could also provide free legal aid in civil matters and establish around the country. This would meet many of the problems which Deputies have to tackle. Very often the problems are legal ones. Very often the Deputy will find himself writing to the Department of Justice or somebody else, then sending a copy of the letter to the individual concerned.

Thirdly, we ought to institute the office of an ombudsman to examine abuses in administration at every level, such as in the Government Civil Service, in local government, and in the police which affect the individual and make him feel discriminated against. If somebody is complaining about the activity of the Land Commission and alleging that there is discrimination against him, there should be a better mechanism than to waste the time or absorb the time of the local Deputy in this sort of grievance work. The inherent danger is that the attitude has grown up that the local Deputy is the person who can solve these problems, and that the person who complained is under obligation to him for doing it, allowing the Deputy to build up his own power base in this way. The result is that he does not have sufficient time to engage in the necessary research, consideration and analysis of legislation. Hence, there is not enough legislative initiative coming from the Opposition of the time and there is far too little real in-depth analysis of measures which come before the Houses of Parliament.

One of the reasons for such wide public discontent is the reporting of parliamentary debates. The public, reading the account for instance of how this Bill was debated in the Dáil, as well as other pieces of legislation, is sadly disillusioned. I have heard Deputies criticise the parliamentary correspondents, calling them drama critics and stating that they pick out the catchword or something to focus on and do not endeavour to give a rounded account of the particular debate which is taking place. On reading the record of so many debates, more so in the other House than in this House where the standard is higher, it is rarely that one finds a really in-depth analysis or consideration of the legislation. The debates are superficial; they focus on rather minor, often politically divisive, points rather than on the merits of the particular legislative proposal and they do not show evidence of research and evidence of independent analysis.

Therefore there is reason for serious public discontent at the manner in which Deputies are fulfilling their functions on two grounds: firstly, the way in which the representative function has been distorted in the absence of other mechanisms to deal with public complaints, and secondly, the lack of proper attention to the legislative process. The only way this discontent can be crystallised is by voicing criticism each time Deputies and Senators come looking for more money.

Looking at the role of the Seanad, in this Bill we are proposing to vote for ourselves, retrospective to the 1st July, salaries of over £2,000. Yet the public are aware that the Seanad meets on an average about 30 days per year. Senators do not have the same heavy commitment to their constituents. Are we giving a sufficiently satisfactory performance to justify the salaries we are looking for? We ought to be paid an appropriate salary for the parliamentary function which we ought to be performing but which we are not. The Seanad is not being used adequately. We are not given sufficient scope to have the impact on Irish life which it is possible to have and which the calibre of people represented in the Seanad would allow us to have. The Seanad is a very appropriate forum for debates on public issues, either as a result of a serious report such as the debate we had last week on the Report of the Commission on the Status of Women or on matters of public interest. There is time for such discussion in this Chamber and the debates are reported which gives full opportunity for the expression of different views.

We have seen efforts by some of the Independent Senators to have a debate on Northern Ireland. It can be argued whether this is appropriate at the present time, but we should not shirk the very important public issues in this House. We have more time for debate and there is a real value in seeing the record of people's views on these particular subjects. We should have more sittings for the purpose of debating the various important reports published each year and other matters of real public interest.

The Government have stated that they will continue to introduce in the Seanad more Bills which are non-contentious. This is welcome because the Seanad has a record of looking more to the merits of legislation than to trying to make political capital out of the particular provisions. If such measures are non-contentious they will get a good first run here before they go to the Dáil where there is always less time for debating. I should like to see more non-contentious Bills initiated in this House and also more evidence of Opposition proposals for legislation and Private Members Bills being given time. The Government should not have, as they have had since the foundation of the State, the virtual monopoly of legislation. We are all legislators; we all have our own legislative powers and responsibility. It is a narrow view, not shared by other Parliaments, that only the Government can initiate and put forward legislation. I would welcome more evidence of initiative by the Opposition Members based on better research facilities and more funds available so that we could have a healthier legislative process.

Apart from the question of using the Seanad more to initiate legislation we should examine the possibility of having a prelegislative stage. Here again we can argue that the Seanad would be an appropriate place to have this as we have more time and the size of the body allows a full debate to take place within a relatively short time. Where there is an important measure which is still in draft form, and where there are options on how to proceed so that it is still flexible, it would be most valuable to have a prelegislative consideration of the draft in this House. This need not necessarily involve a vote so much as the expression of opinion by those who represent the various important interest groups in the country. Senators are elected from panels which relate to agriculture, labour, industry and commerce, professions, language and culture. That is the composition of this House, so the views of Senators ought to be extremely useful before a legislative proposal gets into final draft form after which there is little room for amendment so that the amendments are of very minor details and often only matters of grammar.

If we could create this prelegislative stage, which has been done in other parliaments, it would give a flexibility and power to parliamentarians to influence policy. It would also mean that when the Bill was finally drafted as the Government of the time decided it would be more likely to get a favourable reception in the Dáil when introduced as a Bill in the normal way.

So much for the possibility of improving the performance of the parliamentarians and the use to which we put both Houses of the Oireachtas. The lesson is that if we were to show a serious intention to fulfil our functions and a serious endeavour to improve the image of the Oireachtas, there would be less criticism of raising salaries of parliamentarians and of members of the Government. The public would be more receptive to the idea of helping the individuals concerned to do a better job. It is recognised to be a difficult, time-consuming and responsible task either to legislate or to carry out the executive role of the country, and there would be a public response to evidence of an intention to perform these roles in a significantly better and more relevant way than has happened in our parliamentary tradition to date.

I am not sure that the mechanism set out in sections 5 and 11 of the Bill is the best way of providing for future increases in the salaries of parliamentarians and of members of the Government. This would allow the Government whenever they so think fit by order to increase either or both the Dáil or Seanad salaries. It would allow them to give retrospective effect to these increases, and the draft order would be laid before the Dáil subject to annulment within 21 days. Anybody who is familiar with parliamentary practice will know that unless the Government support a motion annulling an order of this kind it will not be annulled because the Government have the majority of the votes. Therefore, this is not a real mechanism for control, although it provides an opportunity to debate the matter.

What I find unsatisfactory about section 5, relating to increases in parliamentary salaries, and section 11, relating to increases payable to the Government and other officers, is that the criteria for giving such increases are not written into the Bill itself. They give the Government a discretion in the matter, a discretion not just to increase the salaries but to give the increase retrospective effect. I know that the response to this comment will be that the Government will of course refer to the Employer/ Labour Conference and will take into consideration the national wage agreements. But why not write this into the Bill and make it clear that the Government is not looking for a sole discretion to raise its own salaries and the salaries of Members of Parliament every so often?

We legislate for an indefinite future and we ought to build in safeguards into legislation. We should do so particularly when we are legislating about our own salaries. We are in that sense the most privileged group in the nation. No other group has the power to legislate for its own salaries. This puts an onus on us to be particularly careful about the terms of reference by which we do so. We ought to be seen to be being fair. We ought to build into the wording of the Act itself an undertaking that the Government will abide by the recommendations of the Employer/Labour Conference or will tie the increases in salaries to the national wage agreements in a specific way so that it is not left, as it is under the wording of sections 5 and 11 of this Bill, to the discretion of the Government.

Mr. McAuliffe

I should like to compliment Senator Lenihan on the manner in which he addressed himself to this Bill. He set a very high standard and it was very gratifying to observe his approach to it. For years the approach to giving increases in remuneration to Deputies and Senators has been wrong. I welcome the Bill we have before us today, because under the terms of this Bill it will not be necessary to bring in legislation for future increases. They will be paid in line with future national wage agreements.

I believe the Bill should be made retrospective to 11th July, 1972, which was the date of the publishing of the report of the review body. In saying that I am aware that it will not affect me personally because I was not a Member of this House at that time. It would, however, include former Members of the Houses who were not successful in the last election. Some of those former Members have given great service to the country and I should like to see them covered in a retrospective provision in this Bill. It seems the Minister is determined not to go further back than 1st July, 1973.

Senator Lenihan spoke about the position of pensioners. Nothing has been done to improve their position since 1964. I was glad to hear that the Minister has promised to bring in some legislation to cover those pensioners and the widows of pensioners. I should like to see them being better catered for. Some of them are in a very, very bad way indeed. They are quite old now and are trying to live on very small pensions. I would ask the Minister to bring in the intended legislation as quickly as possible so that those people can benefit.

Senator Lenihan referred to the £10,000 that was given to the Opposition in 1968 for research and he also spoke about the large percentage increase that was given to them at that time. It was realised at that time that £5,000 was not a figure that would cater to any degree for the type of research that is necessary. Another £10,000 is being given to them under this Bill. The Fianna Fáil Government gave £10,000 in 1968 and the present Government are giving an additional £10,000 in 1973.

Senator Robinson made a valid point when she said that not enough use is being made of the Seanad and she doubted to some extent whether we were worthy of the increase we are getting under this Bill. I agree with her on that point but last week we had a debate here which was one of the finest debates I have ever heard in either House. Had it not been for the fact that the Taoiseach had come into this House we would not have merited two lines in the national press. It has been the custom of the press down through the years to ignore the debates of the Seanad. For that reason the general public have very little idea of what takes place in the Seanad. We have to depend on the national Press to give us our due amount of publicity so that the public will know that the Seanad is playing its part in formulating good legislation. I should like to see the Seanad meeting more often and becoming more and more involved in the political life of the country.

Mr. Yeats

The Parliamentary Secretary rightly said at the start of his speech that since 1968 other groups have had their salaries increased on four or five occasions under the various national wage agreements and that, therefore, this Bill is long overdue. The reason why it is five years ago yesterday since Members of the Oireachtas last received any increases in their allowances is because we, the Members of the Oireachtas, have to fix our own allowances.

Senator Robinson said that we were the only group in the country who were so privileged as to be in the position of being able to fix our own allowances. However, I would be inclined to look at that matter in another way. Of all the people in the country we are the least privileged, as politicians, in having to fix our allowances. We are obviously the source, each time we do it, of a great deal of ill-informed and somewhat malicious criticism.

When the debate on this Bill began in the Dáil one of the Dublin newspapers carried a heading across four columns, entitled "Leinster House Listens to the Happy Sound of Tinkling Chequebooks". There is some implication there that politicians are the only people in the country interested in such mundane things as their own allowances. Journalists, of course, would not dream of such a thing, though I cannot imagine any newspaper in the country that would still be in being if the journalists had not had any rise in their incomes in the past five years.

There is a great deal of political odium involved in a Bill of this kind. It was this fear of public opinion that caused the Government to turn down the suggestion of the Employer/Labour Conference that there should be retrospection as appropriate from the 12th round and the 1970 National Agreement. This would, for example, have meant that Deputies would have had the first part of their rise under these rounds to a figure of £3,029 on 1st January, 1972, and there would have been a couple of rises since, ending up with the actual figure that is being awarded now. Senators also would have had equivalent rises. The Government decided not to do this. The only argument put forward was that put forward by the Minister for Finance in the Dáil that it would have been quite improper for us, as politicians, to get any money before the new social welfare increases took place on 1st July last.

I am unable to see what social welfare, or social welfare payments, have to do with the matter. If they have anything to do with it, one might legitimately say that there were increases in social welfare under Fianna Fáil in 1969, 1970, 1971 and again in 1972. On none of those occasions was any additional payment made to Members of the Oireachtas. If it is not right that Members of the Oireachtas should get an increase until an increase has been given in the social welfare allowances, then what about the judges and the higher civil servants who are being paid retrospectively?

As has already been pointed out, one unfortunate result of the retrospection recommended by the Employer/Labour Conference has been that those who either lost their seats in the recent general election, or, as in a number of cases, retired have been deprived of the opportunity of getting the equivalent in increased pensions. Like Senator Lenihan, I was very happy to hear it stated in the Dáil that the Government are going to consider this entire question of the pensions of former Members of the Oireachtas. It is, as he mentioned, an appalling situation that former Members of the Oireachtas, and in many cases their widows, should be trying to exist in this day and age on pensions which, particularly if they date before 1968, must be very small indeed.

As Senator Robinson mentioned, there is clearly a need for really well qualified Senators and Deputies. Apart from the constant increase in the complexity of modern life, there are the matters that we have to deal with in the two Houses of the Oireachtas and our entry into the EEC quite clearly poses a whole range of new problems for us. For this reason it was extraordinarily ill-advised of the Government to have omitted altogether in the first draft of this Bill any reference to increased money for the Opposition to pay for research, particularly in view of the additional problems posed by our entry into the EEC. Fortunately, with a great deal of unnecessary trouble and difficulty, the situation has been righted. The draft for the Bill which comes to us now does include a reasonable sum for research for the Opposition.

The Bill provides that in future these matters of increases in allowances should be dealt with no longer by legislation but by Government order. I do not agree with Senator Robinson that this is a bad thing. This is a good decision. It is a tidier and more efficient way of dealing with the matter than this business of bringing in legislation each time increased allowances are to be paid to Senators and Deputies.

In the Bill as it comes before us there is, however, one very serious omission, both in section 5 and section 11. These sections provide that, where an order is proposed to be made under these sections, a draft is to be laid before Dáil Éireann and, if a resolution disapproving of the draft is passed by the Dáil within 21 days after the draft has been laid before the Dáil, then the order should not be made. Why is Seanad Éireann not included in this? Under this Bill this is going to be the last time that Seanad Éireann will ever again be in a position to discuss its own allowances, or the allowances of the Cathaoirleach, Leas-Chathaoirleach, members of the Government, or indeed Members of the Dáil.

This seems to be an extraordinary omission which I am unable to understand. I propose to put down an amendment on Committee Stage to remedy this matter.

Apart from this, I think the new system is on the whole an improvement. There is one vital thing that the Government must at all times keep in mind. Under this proposal, they must report regularly. What has created all the difficulty, not merely on this occasion but on previous occasions, has been that because we as politicians were, in what Senator Robinson curiously called the privileged position of fixing our own salaries, and because of the public odium thereby involved, long periods were allowed to elapse. Even to keep up with the cost of living what seemed to the public like very large increases had to be awarded. It is therefore essential that the Government at least as often as there is a national wage agreement, and in the absence of such an agreement at least every two years or so—not more than two years —should make whatever consequential changes are needed in salaries for Deputies, Senators, Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and officers of the House.

It is a good thing that we should understand precisely the nature of the increases we are awarding to ourselves in this Bill. On the face of it in money terms they seem high. The Parliamentary Secretary, in the course of his speech introducing this Bill, said that the increases now proposed were in line with the increases given to public servants generally.

That is simply not correct. He added: "Under the 12th round of the national agreements". I will accept that part of it. But what about the earlier rounds which he mentioned at the start of his speech? It is worthwhile considering how we have fared in comparison with other sections. Take one single income instance—figures that we were given as an incentive proposed recently for average earnings and hours worked by skilled and unskilled operatives in the building trades. Between December, 1970 and December, 1972, a period of two years, the average earnings per hour of skilled operatives went up by 36.7 per cent and of unskilled and semi-skilled operatives by 40.2 per cent. It is five years ago yesterday since any increase was awarded to Senators, Deputies and Ministers, the Cathaoirleach and so on. The increases being given in this Bill to Senators and Deputies are in each case less than that. In five years we have been awarded less than skilled, unskilled and semi-skilled building operatives were able to obtain in 24 months. Perhaps it might be said that this is not a particularly good comparison. There are reasons why in the building trades wages and earnings would increase considerably more rapidly than the actual cost of living.

Let us take the Civil Service itself. Let us consider a typical figure for higher executive officers. They are under the control of the Minister for Finance who has brought in this Bill. The figures are rather interesting. A higher executive officer, for example, who in August 1968—that is the month we last got an increase—at the minimum of the scale had £1,400 per year, just £100 less than a Senator at that time, in July 1973 would have had £2,330. In other words, he started off £100 a year lower than a Senator in August 1968, and he now has £307 per year more.

Take the example of a higher executive officer at the maximum of the B scale who in August, 1968, had £2,300, £200 less than a Deputy's salary at that time, last month had £3,574. He started £200 lower than a Deputy and in five years he has climbed up to £158 ahead of a Deputy. These are typical figures, not just individuals here and there, covering many hundreds and, perhaps, even thousands of civil servants. I am not suggesting that the allowances fixed in this Bill should be increased but we should be quite clear that we have slipped back very seriously over the past five years. Since one gathers that in future under these Government orders we are to be kept abreast of new pay rounds, national wage agreements and so on, we may take it that we are never going to catch up again; we have been downgraded in our salaries and for a number of years to come, it is quite clear, that is the way we are going to remain.

I do not know why matters were arranged in this way but, apart from Senators and Deputies, it does appear to be altogether extraordinary that the Cathaoirleach, for example, should have been given an increase of 12.15 per cent and the Leas-Chathaoirleach, for some reason, did rather better and got 20.3 per cent. In each case the figures were vastly below the actual increase in the cost of living and vastly below what everybody else, including journalists, got.

That is all I wish to say on the Bill except to urge the Government with all the strength at my command that it is absolutely essential that there should no longer be these long gaps of five years, or longer, in making these changes. Much smaller changes at more frequent intervals in line with what civil servants and other sections get are what is needed. I would stress again that the amendment I propose to put down is one of vital importance from the point of view of the Seanad. It seems to me altogether extraordinary that a Bill like this should be brought in completely depriving the Seanad on any future occasion of the right to discuss our salaries.

Mr. Sanfey

I should like at the outset to endorse what the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Russell and other Senators said with regard to the granting of parity to Oireachtas pensioners and particularly to their widows. The principle of parity in pensions payable in the public sector has been recognised for years as being correct and equitable. It is unfair that Deputies and Senators and in particular their widows should be denied this parity. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this point and I hope the Government will introduce legislation in the near future to cope with it.

On the question of the allowances provided for in this Bill for parties in general, I should like to congratulate the Minister on recognising the need for the payment of this allowance to the Government party in respect of the research facilities to be provided for backbenchers. This point was conceded in the debate in the other House by several Opposition speakers. There is no difference as far as the rank and file Deputies are concerned whether or not they serve on the backbench of the Government party or on the Opposition party. In the party to which I belong the transition from Opposition to Government has not meant that a magic wand has been waved over the backbenchers as regards the information available to help them with their work. This I believe has been the experience of the Labour Party also.

It has been mentioned in several debates in this House during the last few weeks that the volume of work consequent on our entry into the EEC has increased tenfold. Government backbench Deputies have, of course, the same need for assistance in dealing with this. It is true to say that the experience of the average Deputy on the Government side of the House has been that the transition from Opposiion to Government has meant that work has doubled or possibly trebled and anything the Minister can do to alleviate their lot is more than welcome.

Again, on the question of the allowance payable to parties, I notice in this Bill and, indeed, in the Act of 1968 that it is referred to as "allowance payable to the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the party", et cetera. I am sure it is not necessary to stress this point in this House, but the wording “an allowance payable to the Leader” has in my experience given rise to misconceptions at various levels of the organisation. I wish to take this opportunity of saying in respect of the Fine Gael Party, that the allowance which was paid to us in Opposition was entirely devoted to the betterment of the facilities available to Deputies both by way of research facilities and the secretarial work associated with that.

At the risk of labouring the point, I want to spell out that the Leader of my Party did not get one penny from this allowance either by way of extra salary, extra expenses or payment under any other guise. What other parties do with their money is, of course, their own business. I would not like anything I say to be interpreted as telling them what to do with their money, but I want to put it on the record of the House that as far as our party are concerned this money was entirely devoted to the betterment of the facilities available to Deputies and Senators.

Another point in regard to this allowance was made by an Opposition Deputy in the Dáil when he said that as far as the Government Deputies were concerned it represented a hidden salary increase. He went so far as to say that it was an increase given to Deputies of the Government party in defiance of the national wage agreement. He gave the impression that he believed that the payment of the small sum now provided for the Government party would relieve Deputies and Senators—of the Fine Gael Party at any rate—of paying the monthly levy which we all pay to help with the secretarial facilities of the party. I want to refute this. It is not true. As Senator Lenihan mentioned, it is the practice in all parties that Deputies and Senators make a reasonably substantial monthly contribution to help with the secretarial facilities available to them. The payment which the Government envisage for the Government party will go some of the way to supplement this contribution, but it will not relieve Deputies and Senators of the need for paying it in future.

On the whole question of the expenses of political parties, I do not have to labour the point, talking to fellow Senators who are well aware of the expenses which face a political party, that the great proportion of the money which we need to run our party is raised by the organisation throughout the country. This will continue to be the case.

Finally, I find myself in disagreement with the point made by Senator Robinson about the steps which the Government envisage for dealing with the problem of Oireachtas salaries in future. I am particularly glad to note that Senator Yeats is of the same opinion. Twice in the past six years I have seen the time of both Houses taken up with this question of increases in allowances to Deputies and Senators. As Senator Yeats rightly pointed out, the manner in which it has been handled has caused considerable public odium. I will not go in any detail into what happened in the House last week, but there is no doubt that the manner in which these increases have been handled in the past has annoyed the public and given rise to much unfavourable comment. For that reason, I am very pleased to see in this Bill that the Government propose in future, when the question of Oireachtas allowances arises, to deal with it by way of a regulation to be laid before both Houses. I commend the Minister for Finance on his courage in that respect.

Professor Quinlan

I wish to join with other Senators in welcoming this Bill. The most important sections, and the ones to which I give a particular welcome, are sections 5 and 11, under which the Government have rightly taken the power to adjust salaries by Government order as and when required. In a period of inflation, in which we are at present, and to which there does not appear to be any foreseeable end, this is the only logical approach to all salary adjustments. It is absurd that we should have to have a Bill every time the salaries of Members of the Oireachtas have to be brought into line with cost-of-living increases. It is worse than that, because in the past the Government of the day always allowed the adjustments to pile up and were unwilling to bring in an adjustment Bill more frequently than every three or four years. This meant that the increases to be brought in at that stage appeared to be totally out of line with what was being given at that time in the then current wages agreement.

We have seen the disruptive effect of this approach in the past. We had one grotesque situation where the increase brought in amounted to 50 per cent because the Government had not done their duty over the previous five or seven years. The present increase, which in the case of Dáil salaries is almost 30 per cent, appears to be out of line even with the 9 per cent which is due on 1st July. This is due solely to the fact that no adjustment was made since 1968. The disruptive effect of this apparent bad example by the Government of these very sizeable increases has been evident over the past 12 years. We have appealed again and again in this House and elsewhere for the Government to take the steps which they are now taking under sections 5 and 11. Personally, I cannot see why previous Governments did not take this very simple and obvious step. I commend this approach. It will remove the question of Oireachtas salaries out of the realm of unjustified criticism and will not allow it to be used as a disruptive factor in wage agreements.

Having said that, I want to ask: does Parliament really value the service which is given? It is acknowledged that Members of the Dáil are, by and large, full-time. I doubt that many Members of the Dáil spend less than 40 hours a week on the job. With the representations they have to make, they are spending much more time than that. They are full-time servants in the service of this State. They are in a leadership role. On them depends the maintenance and development of our democracy. Is it not farcical to suggest that a Deputy should be paid £3,400 per year when a junior lecturer, grade I, in the regional technical colleges is paid £3,800 a year. That is the going rate and he is worth it. A lecturer, grade I, is paid £4,300 per year.

As quoted by Senator Yeats, if we take corresponding Civil Service grades, the executive and administrative arm of the State, we find that the maximum for the higher executive officer and the administrative officer is £3,600, that is over £200 a year more than Deputies. It can be said that the administrative officer grade is a career grade. On entry into the grade, promotion is more or less assured within six years, if the person performs adequately. In the same way, the higher executive officer is in the career structure and neither of these salaries is subject to many of the expenses that fall on Deputies with party contributions et cetera all of which are allowed or accepted as being real by the Revenue Commissioners.

Is it fair to expect whole-time service from Deputies at salaries much lower than the relatively middle Civil Service grades, without any permanency or any of the other advantages associated with the Civil Service or the teaching profession? I mentioned the scales in the regional technical colleges. Today they are about the same as the lecturer scales in the universities—about £300 less per annum.

If that is the level we must be realistic and face up to being in Europe. We can no longer confine our attention to this little island. I appeal to the Government to give some thought to this after the recess. Do we accept that membership of the Oireachtas is to be confined to a class who have money and profession and cannot be contemplated by anyone in a career position from which he has to take leave of absence?

We need full-time service if we pay full-time salaries. At present we are only paying part-time salaries for full-time service in the Dáil. We need full-time service for full-time salaries. Full-time service is required of the relatively few Members there are in the Oireachtas when set against the tasks of keeping abreast of affairs today and especially the complications in the EEC. The solution is quite simple and is not even original as it is in operation in the Netherlands and elsewhere. A Member of the Oireachtas, especially a Member of the Dáil, would be required to be seconded from his post which means that the salary of a replacement would be paid. Anyone in a regular position could have somebody appointed in secondment. A farmer devoting all his time to this work could have a full-time assistant paid to take his place in his occupation. Senators at present are paid a part-time salary for part-time work. That is fair enough. But a part-time Seanad is not good enough for the duties we must face. We should gradually work for a more full-time type of Seanad and the secondment principle, when introduced into the Dáil might in time, depending on the development of an adequate committee system and a justification for the services involved, be applied to the Seanad also.

Apart from the Government, we have fewer than 180 Members between the Dáil and Seanad. In a modern complex society, with the complex relations we have with the EEC, unless we are prepared to leave all that to the career civil servants, it will take even more than 180 committed and full-time Members of the Oireachtas to ensure that the outside view is brought in, that the non-Civil Service view is present and is brought in to balance out the Civil Service view in an attempt to develop our own country within the EEC and so make some positive contribution to the development of thinking in Europe. Undoubtedly, we have a strong contribution to make there. We have much to offer with our strong Christian tradition, our traditions of democracy and the difficulties and travails we had in reaching that stage.

I am pleased that the Government have taken in sections 5 and 11 the powers to adjust what is there. This does not enable the Government to make secondment payments. That would mean introducing a new Bill but it is very well worth while and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to bring it to the attention of the Government.

While the level of salary proposed for Ministers which is approximately £8,000 and for Parliamentary Secretaries which is £6,000 seems, in our full-time management career structure to be reasonable, by contrast the £3,400 to a Deputy who is giving full-time service obviously appears to be inadequate. This affects all parties whether in the Opposition or in Government. There is a need for the ordinary rank and file of the Government party in any Government to make themselves felt in Government circles and to ensure that the Government of the day, whatever party they are, do not slowly settle in again to being merely messengers from their civil servants.

On the question of EEC affairs, the Government should make provision for travel for members to and from Europe or take a liberal view on that to ensure that Members of both Houses become familiar with the matters in Europe in which they are interested or to which they can make a contribution.

I disagree with Senator Robinson on her criticism of sections 5 and 11. This is something we have been asking for years. We should not laud the question of debate. While we have some excellent debates in the Seanad, a debate is essentially a rather 18th century approach to affairs. There is not the cut and thrust which is the hall-mark of a proper committee. The contribution of the Seanad should be measured not alone by the number of hours we spend in the Chamber but on the contributions the Seanad makes to committees. At present these are nonexistent apart from the Statutory Instruments Committee and one or two other Committees that meet very rarely.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

There is the Committee on EEC Legislation.

Professor Quinlan

I know that. We have made a beginning, but rather than trying to spend greatly increased hours here in the Chamber it would be far better for us to spend those hours in committees to which we can make contributions. There is no point in sitting on committees in which we are not interested and to which we have not a contribution to make. Let us divide up the work and make the European Communities Committee the first of many specialist committees working from here. That is the best way in which we can make our contributions.

In conclusion, I wish to support the strictures that have been made on the Press reporting of the proceedings of Seanad Éireann. It is an absolute disgrace that Liz Taylor and Richard Burton got far more headlines in our national newspapers than a serious three-day debate on the state of the nation got last January. At that time we had an excellent debate here ranging over the different economic aspects of our country on the Appropriation Bill. The following day I scanned two of our national daily newspapers—I will exempt the Cork Examiner as it carried some report of the debate—for a report on the proceedings of Seanad Éireann. We might as well have not disturbed our Christmas vacation to meet here on 11th January for all the coverage we got in the Press.

We had an excellent, very moderate and very constructive debate on that occasion, but there was no mudslinging in it so it did not make the headlines. I hope the Press will adopt a sense of balance and will endeavour to get away from sensationalism and give adequate coverage to the Seanad proceedings. The Dáil, I believe, is reported excessively and almost verbatim in an effort to try to create the sense of some type of wild debating society. Again, I do not think that kind of reporting does justice to the Dáil. The Press have a serious responsibility and they should live up to it.

That famous institution up the road called Montrose should realise that before giving prominence to Members of Seanad Eireann it is necessary for us to become pets of theirs but once we disagree with the official Montrose ultra-liberal line we are out. I got two invitations to appear on television programmes over the last 12 years. One was for a one-and-a-half minute appearance on a United Nations programme. Whatever person was the brains behind that programme conceived that I would be the critic and the attacker of the United Nations to wind up the programme. I made it clear to them that they had me cast wrongly. I may be critical of the United Nations at times but we are far better off with such an organisation than we are without it. At that stage I found that the programme's interest in me was receding. In any case I told them I was far too busy to come to Dublin to appear for one-and-a-half minutes on a television programme. They said they would send a taxi to collect me but I declined the offer.

About two years after that experience I received another invitation to appear on a programme on censorship. I found myself cast—and I agree with the drama criticism—in the role of the man who was totally pro-censorship. Where that idea came from I do not know, but I pointed out that that was not one of my special fields of study. My field is education, agriculture and a bit of national economics. I have never made a special study of censorship and I told him I was not prepared to go on such a programme but I would be only too pleased to appear on a programme on a subject I am interested in and to make a contribution to it. That was five years ago and the silence is still deafening. That is not facing up to responsibility.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator is straying away from the Bill.

Professor Quinlan

I know I am straying from the Bill but I should like to get on the record the "responsible" approach of Montrose to what they think public representatives should do.

I should like to compliment the Government again on sections 5 and 11. The Opposition should be complimented on succeeding in having increased the allowance to the Opposition which, I believe, is justified. On the other hand, the fact that the Government listened to the strong case put forward by the Opposition augurs well for the future. It encourages groups around the country, whether they are parent/teacher associations, school groups and so forth, never to accept no for an answer. If you have a case, go and make it. I hope it will become a characteristic of this Government, after a hard case has been made to them, to admit that they may have been wrong and that the Opposition were right. This is a characteristic of good Government.

I can never understand why politicians have to place so much reliance on feeling that they have not changed. Our whole society is changing. Science is changing. The hallmark of a scientist is to be able to admit that there are more facts available, more experiments available and more knowledge available now and that their previous theories or decisions were inadequate and wrong and may have to be reversed. The same can be said of the science of politics and the science of Government—things are always changing. Therefore, I hope the Government will not in any way be tied by this fear of change but will relish the opportunity of getting up and saying that the facts have changed and their decision has changed also. I commend the Bill.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

I should like to join with those who have paid tribute to the standard of the debate in this House. Many people who have spoken have decided to address soul-searching questions to themselves. Senator Robinson has asked such questions, by implication, as "How relevant are we?" In most cases the discussion has been, rather than concentrating narrowly on allowances, on the general principle as to how we can improve the standard of parliamentary performance.

When we are discussing raising our allowances or salaries we face the type of criticism that the Minister has made reference to in his speech. We are voting ourselves the increase and, more than that, this places us in a particular position in our society. To put it in more fundamental terms, when people ask you: "Are you going to the Seanad this week?" they usually say: "I am sure you are. You are voting yourselves an increase."

When we are voting ourselves increases, it is appropriate that we discuss and justify the rules of both Chambers of the Oireachtas. When an increase in the salary of a Senator is proposed, one should spell out what the future of the Seanad is going to be. I believe the structures of Parliament in both Houses are not suitable for the modern legislative process. The role of the Deputy and Senator as defined in the procedures of both Houses represents an uncritical acceptance of institutional structures of another century.

I am sure many Deputies and Senators feel this and many of them have been commenting on it. Senators have said that they want to do more work, and do this work more efficiently. Senator Robinson, in her speech, drew our attention to the two facets of a Deputy's or Senator's life, on the one hand, that of representation and, on the other hand, that of legislation. We really need to ask ourselves the question: are we effectively representing people in the true spirit of democracy at all? When it comes to legislation, there are a number of procedural changes which probably would enable us to legislate more effectively. Taking the first of these, that is the business of representation itself, I am becoming more convinced that we need to devolve as much decision-making as possible on natural local communities if we are to preserve democracy. Last week I heard a person on this side of the House say he had fought for our entry into Europe—with respect I was one of those who fought to keep us out of Europe. Whether we like it or not we are in Europe and decision-making has been removed from this country to a new centre. We need to counterbalance the centralisation of decision-making by devolving as much decision-making as possible to natural communities and particularly to the regions.

Removed from the crush of very immediate minor matters, the Deputies and Senators could be representative of an area at a more general, possibly a more remote sense. Again, in regard to legislation when people speak—for example, and I was glad to hear it in the Seanad—they did not quibble about the exact sum given for research and secretarial assistance. I do not believe—and I said it on my first day in this Chamber—that the provision of an increased sum of money will change radically the role of either House. I believe the only way we will effectively give both Houses more power and involve more Deputies and Senators is by the establishment of a legislative research bureau. I spoke about this before and I want to say exactly what I mean. I think Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas should have access to a body of expert and critical opinion. If I might take one example of this, concerning the elimination of poverty—to put it more fundamentally, the removal of inequality in our society—there are a number of strategies which are appropriate and which have been tried in industrialised capitalist countries. There are strategies which have been tried in countries which do not hold with such a philosophy. Any Deputy or Senator should have a bureau to which he could go and simply say: "I believe that there are interesting approaches towards the elimination of inequality, towards the checks on developing bureaucracy in a particular eastern country" and such a package would be prepared for him.

In relation to poverty he might want to say: "I believe that the pretence of eliminating poverty in the United States has failed, that it has been a disaster; I believe there have been changes in some States. Could we have information on this? The idea then of a Senator, for example, or a Deputy going along taking any particular theme and receiving advice on it is one that goes far beyond merely giving an extra £1,000 or £2,000.

I should like Members of both Houses to give some kind of comment on or commitment to such procedure. It would mean that any Deputies, backbenchers, particularly in the Dáil, and Senators would be far more involved. I disagree with one sentence in the Minister's speech. On section 12 he says:

The Civil Service can, of course, be relied upon to provide the Government with the necessary backing and research.

With respect to the Civil Service—and I think they have been blamed far too much in the history of the State for a number of things for which they are not guilty—I humbly suggest that there is a particular kind of information which they can provide. They can provide a Minister with some description of the implications of his decision. But what they are offering is a rather narrow pragmatic opinion based on immediate facts. It would be far too much to suggest that the Civil Service, as at present constituted, is capable of taking several alternative approaches, drawn from different ideologies, and placing these before the Government or before Deputies and Senators. Rather than having, on the one hand, suggested allowances and secretarial help and research facilities for people who are not in Government and the suggestion that the Civil Service can fulfil the role of research for the Government, we should move towards the establishment of a new bureau. It would certainly involve Members far more than they are at the present time.

Such a bureau in many cases as I have described it before, would help dispel a myth that is involved in this country, that is, that you have a strange breed of people who scurry around the country kissing babies and shaking hands who have long suffering wives with sprained wrists from writing letters and these are "the Government" or "the Opposition". We should realise that there are a number of people who do not want to get involved in the bustle of politics but who should contribute to the life of the nation. I should like to put on record that I believe that the history of academics in Ireland has been a disgraceful one. In many cases, quite rightly, they have defended their right to academic freedom. They have chosen, however, with marked and distinguished exceptions, to exercise their academic freedom by silence. I should like to see, in such a bureau, academics drawn from the home community and from foreign universities and institutes participating within it.

To return more centrally to the Bill itself, I have said the Minister, in his speech, spoke about the role of the Deputy. I have been speaking about a procedure which would increase the legislative effectiveness of a Senator and Deputy. Senator Robinson has said that in the course of debate Deputies find themselves writing letters and doing jobs and tasks which would more accurately be performed by an ombudsman, a citizens' advice bureau, et cetera. The Minister, in his speech, mentions in the discussion of the Deputy's role the Deputy has no claim to overtime pay and despite the fact that his job may require him to write thousands of letters on behalf of his constituents he gets no allowance for secretarial services.

I am against patronage systems. I think patronage systems emerge where bureaucracy has intervened between the natural rights of the citizens and the decision-making apparatus of the State, but the point is that without the intervening Deputies and Senators many people in our society would be in a state of great bewilderment. Many people are ignorant of their rights. I support the proposal to establish citizens' advice bureaux, to appoint ombudsmen, et cetera, and to relieve the Deputy for the more serious tasks of reflection and of legislation.

Let us be clear. I doubt if any Deputy welcomes this chore of writing thousands of letters. It is very easy to come into either the Dáil or the Seanad and simply pillory Deputies. Deputies and Senators have been victims to some extent of the structures which exist. At a date very soon in the future we should examine the role, purpose and operations of both of our Houses.

In discussing the increased remuneration proposed for Senators people have said we are part-time workers in a part-time Assembly. Some people want us to be full-time workers in a full-time Assembly. Other people want us to be seconded to the Seanad and have people doing the jobs from which we fled promoted. If we are to be an effective Assembly we should be a fully critical Assembly. We should be allowed, in the structure of the ordering of business by the Government in power at the time, to discuss matters of national and international importance. We should be capable and willing to discuss all aspects of human life in so far as it has implications to the society for which, theoretically, we are legislating. We should be able to discuss ideological issues. I often get the impression, listening to some of the debates in the other House, that we are involved in one vast housekeeping exercise rather than in a legislative process. It is generally assumed that we have no control over certain types of influences which affect our society and our economy. It is presumed, for example, that inevitably we must react to international economic influences. We may never question them or ever seek to control them.

When I read the Official Reports of both Houses of the Oireachtas in discussing the notion of inflation it is presented as something between pneumonia and the 'flu. It happens. Somebody—out of charity I will not give his name—referred to the problem by saying there is inflation everywhere. That is like saying the whole country is down with the 'flu. This notion that people sitting in both Houses are powerless, hopeless people, who must react at best in a kind of a housekeeping fashion, is unsatisfactory, to put it mildly.

A committee system drawn from both Houses of the Oireachtas would change this. Other Senators have spoken about the advantages of the committee system and I do not wish to be repetitive. A developed committee system would involve a greater number of Deputies and Senators. In the Seanad people differ ideologically. There are many of us who have different views concerning the philosophical basis of different economic and social systems. The Seanad is an appropriate place to discuss these problems. If we cannot discuss them here then we are just a very shabby, poor version of the other House.

I would agree that the economy and society have to be managed, but I am getting a little weary of people not referring to basic questions, such as, for example: why do people work? In what way are people's lives governed by working in circumstances over which they have no control? To what extent are human populations moved by the demands of capital investment? If we cannot ask these questions, then we are being a little dishonest in giving ourselves more money.

I see the Seanad as a critical body examining all aspects of society and allowing for differences. I am a socialist. I do not believe that people who practise the private enterprise system are doing it because they are possessed by the devil. They have been acculturated into a set of norms and beliefs. They have a certain theory of human nature. Man is naturally acquisitive. Man is naturally greedy. He must be forever acquiring goods. Human concerns are impractical concerns. The idea that the economy would serve social and human goals is not acceptable to them. We should be able to explain where we stand towards each other. We should be able to present our reactions fully, generously and honestly. If we did this we could inform legislative instruments. This is the role I would have in mind for the Seanad.

Somebody said to me: "I believe you are in the Seanad now. What does the Seanad do?" You could give people like this all this documentation we get, which would lose you a friend for life. It might be useful. In reading through the Seanad debates I believe that the first Seanad was a good one. It was a good Seanad because they were able to discuss fundamental human issues in a very generous, broad and flexible manner. The Seanad of which Senator W.B. Yeats was a member was an excellent one. It lost a lot when it was reconstituted in 1937. But the time has come now for us to examine again our structure and our role. We should do so, but not by giving ourselves more money. The proposal in the Bill to increase our remuneration raises another question. It would be unfair to expect it in this Bill, but I should like if at some future date there could be a discussion on the salaries of those who will constitute the regional assemblies, structured as they may be in different parts of the country.

I should like to refer to what Senator Quinlan said. He has attacked the Press for reporting inadequately on the proceedings of the Seanad. In fairness it should be remembered that reporters are under a certain amount of editorial pressure. Sometimes their material is printed and sometimes it is not. The Senator also attacked Montrose. Now that we are going to have better-paid people in the Seanad and now that we have an indication that we may be moving towards a committee system, perhaps the Press will report on our proceedings more adequately. One of the surest ways of getting coverage for ourselves is to begin to assume a more responsible, complete, humane and honest role. We should not apologise to anybody for increasing our salaries. What we should do is to use the opportunity in getting a long-overdue raise to explain to the public that we wish to change these 19th century structures in such a way as will enable us to perform a useful and critical role in the 20th century.

Mr. Butler

I welcome the Bill, but I am disappointed that a section dealing with pensions was not introduced. I was glad to hear Senator Lenihan in the opening words of his speech stressing the importance of revision of pensions. I know how important a pension is because my mother is in receipt of a pension. She was the wife of a Deputy in the Dáil from 1922 to 1927. He served as a Senator for 28 years. The total sum she is receiving for that period of public service given by her husband is £365 per year. When I became a Senator I made it my business to approach the then Minister for Finance to discuss this problem with him.

The impression I got was that the "kitty" was bare and nothing could be given. That is the reason I hoped that some provision would be introduced in this Bill dealing with pensions. My mother gave service to the State because she was the wife of a Deputy from 1922 to 1927. They were difficult years. She reared a family of seven. She had to stay up at night waiting for her husband to come home. She worried a lot. The pension she is receiving was contributed to by her husband. She has to pay tax to the State on that pension. I am glad mention was made of pensions because it gives me the opportunity to urge the Minister to do something urgently about them.

There are many other aspects of the Bill on which I should like to speak but there is one point I should like to make after listening to the debate, and that is that the Seanad has served the country well since its foundation. Very little change should be made.

Mr. McGowan

I should like to support the proposal for improved salaries for Members of this House and feel very justified in so doing. There are two, if not more, types of Senator. I should not like to think I belonged to the group who did a great deal of parliamentary research, then came into the Chamber and made an eloquent speech and, when that was finished, that was the end of my interest. I should like to think I was the kind of Senator who found it very difficult to go into all the background which would enable me to be a very eloquent Parliamentarian.

Business suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. McGowan

I was supporting the increase for Members of this House. There are two different roles a Senator can play and the two different types of Seanad Members have completely different functions and different approaches to this House. I try to understand the Senator who is very eloquent and who can do justice to himself and do his homework and research and do a fine job in the Seanad, then picks up his papers, walks out and that is almost the end of his contribution. In many cases these are highly professional people such as professors or lecturers or those involved in bodies closely associated with parliamentary work. It becomes easy for them to deliver a fine speech.

All too often we must accept criticism from these people about the need for a Member of the Seanad to get involved in the day-to-day problems in rural areas. They say this is unnecessary and that a Member of the Seanad brings this upon himself. I should like to think that half the Members of the Seanad and especially those who are elected are also members of local authorities which involves them in practical work such as meeting constituents. The Senator must equip himself with knowledge of the administration in the local authority. He must know who is entitled to a medical card, who is entitled to social welfare benefits and all the various grants, aids and everything the rural community are entitled to. This knowledge can only be obtained if you are actively involved and attend meetings.

I had the experience of attending a county council meeting on a Monday, a health board meeting on a Tuesday, a meeting of the Seanad on a Wednesday and Thursday, a planning meeting on a Friday, a clinic on a Saturday and two or three other meetings on a Sunday. There are numerous other demands on our time such as attending meetings in connection with local development schemes, group water schemes and the further development of areas.

This is an aspect that cannot be seen, or understood, by the people who come into this House and deliver very fine speeches having undertaken research into the subject matter. They are two different approaches. I try to understand those people who deliver very eloquent speeches and who look at the administrative side purely from the theoretical point of view. However, I hope those people will acknowledge that there is a practical side to being a Member of this House.

I find it very necessary to be actively involved in administration. I am not boasting when I say that most weeks I exceed 300 letters, and I write these letters not because I wish to have any monuments erected to me as a great correspondent. I find it difficult work wading through a pile of notes and unfinished work.

The salary is a very small consideration for this job. It is very small and I have no hesitation in stating that I am in favour of increasing it. I hope that it will not be embarrassing for any Member to support the increase which is meagre enough.

I hope the time is at hand when it will not be necessary for the Members of the Dáil and Seanad to grant themselves increases. Let us look at the salary a Senator receives at present. I get £110 per month which is just the same as a postman gets for working 30 hours. In fact, a sorter in a post office gets more. After the elections very few Members of the Seanad, especially those Members who had to work hard to be elected, had a credit balance in the bank. That, in itself, indicates that the reward for being elected a Member of the Seanad is not all that the public are led to believe by those who talk most in this House. It is a pity that those Members who make such very fine contributions do not get down to meeting their own supporters and find out their needs. They might have the theory but they do not have the practical knowledge.

Many Senators are lucky because their own people do not find it easy to approach them. They manage to steer a course where they do not have to come into contact with their supporters but they should consider the Members of this House who are daily in contact with the public. I have no desire to prolong this debate and I shall conclude by saying that it is absolutely necessary that the Members of the Seanad should be rewarded for their efforts on behalf of the public. I hope this Bill will be carried, that every Member of the House will support it and that we will not find ourselves having to come back here to go through this procedure again.

Mr. Harte

I believe the whole subject of Members' allowances, whether we are entitled to get the increases or whether we are treated equitably compared with people who are dealt with under the national wage agreements, has been well and truly covered by now. There can be no argument about the question of the increases because since 1968 we have had about four or five rounds of increases. The percentages that have been gained outside since 1968—whether by a free-for-all or through national agreements—would compare more favourably than the increases that are being considered here today.

I am concerned that people here might get upset about the effects of salary increases on public opinion. It depends on what they are talking about when they say "public opinion". Is it their own friends they mean? To say that the working classes would object to such increases is an insult to their intelligence. What they do is to react and they do so because the amounts seem to be substantial.

In one particular wage agreement, under the various anomaly clauses, one can negotiate a flat increase of £2 plus £2.50 for productivity. That is a sum of £4.50 for one year coupled with the second phase, which has yet to come, which is based on an escalator clause and which will yield up to another £2 per week. In other words, under an 18 months agreement, it is quite possible for an ordinary worker to receive an increase in the region of £6 if he uses the national wage agreement correctly. Taking that into consideration, and the fact that there have been four or five rounds of increases since the last review of Members' salaries, nobody need worry that the workers will not understand the reasons for our increase.

They will, naturally, react, but the confusion which now exists in their minds could be allayed by doing what is suggested in this Bill. It is indicative of the new approach by the Government that they wish to make a ministerial order and give 21 days for people to argue against it, and time the increase to coincide with a general upward trend in wages. A £10 increase looks very large when taken in isolation, but if you examine the agreements I have spoken of you will find that a £10 or a £12 increase has been exceeded, coupling the four increases that have come together.

The real injustice lies in our dealings with people who have gone out on pension from the Oireachtas. They have been living in a situation where there was a 10 per cent increase in the cost of living between 1972 and 1973 and the actual cost of food went up by 17 per cent. Anybody trying to live on the present Oireachtas pension, without any other income, is very badly off compared with other people who come under pension schemes which are negotiable and revised from time to time. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to ask the Minister, when he is looking at this question of Oireachtas pensions, to go back through the years and observe how the pension has lost its value in the sense of the inflationary terms we have and in the sense of real money incomes. They will find there is justification there to introduce some sort of an augmentation system to bring them into line. It might mean some people would get more than others depending on the period of time they have been out on pension, but there is need for some augmentation to bring up those people who have been a long time out, who have not been re-elected for many years; the same argument applies in the case of their widows. A clause on the lines I suggest would be very desirable.

The other point is that we have now got in this year's Finance Bill a death in service benefit. At one time one could realise only a year and a half or two years' pay but it will be possible under this Bill for an employer to pay up to four years' salary to a widow.

There is no point in talking about the cost of living and leaving out one particular aspect of money incomes. When we talk of equity then we must be equitable in all spheres, with all sections and in all categories. In this case the disadvantage of the pension scheme for Members of the Oireachtas is that there is no regular provision for looking at the cost of living. A clause could be inserted whereby the pension, if the cost of living went up by 10 per cent, could be reviewed or reviewed at the end of a period of two years. The question of helping money to retain its value could be dealt with by means of a betterment clause. This is not uncommon in pension funds. If we are talking about falling into line or trying setting an example of the trend to be followed by people, acting only in accordance with what the national economy can stand and gearing their claims for salary and wage increases on that, these should all coalesce to avoid confusion. The cost would not be very great in the context. Things must start somewhere. The first step is to augment the small pensions of people who have been a long time out on pension, in the interests of the men themselves or of their widows and, of course, the death in service benefit would be of great advantage to those women who suffer the hardships, as Senator Butler mentioned earlier.

The tone of the debate has removed all contention from the Bill. The Dáil, in their little bit of a free-for-all, if you like, cleared the air and that has made discussion easier in the Seanad. I should like to thank Senator Lenihan for his approach and Senator Russell for the way in which he responded to the tone set by Senator Lenihan.

A contribution was made by one of my colleagues in which he argued there was a greater function for the Seanad. I do not necessarily understand all the argument, but I agree with it in principle. If we are saying that we must be looked at in a proper way and have salaries adjusted in accordance with national trends, and, if a meaningful role is to be played in society and public service, then I would agree with the Senator that some changes are needed in the present structure. The only question is as to how one would go about this. It appeared to me we were not actually talking about future reforms but as if we had already been reformed; we are merely in the process of trying to achieve reforms. We would agree with any ideas of a gradual improvement in the functions we can perform, particularly in the initiation of constructive legislation for the benefit of the community as a whole.

Mr. Dolan

I, too, welcome this Bill and I make no apology for starting on the question of pensions. It is tremendously important that we recognise that some of those who have served this House well have lost their seats through no fault of theirs and found themselves and their dependents with no means of support. We should concentrate on this issue.

There are then those people who have been in this House since 1968 and who have not got any increase whatsoever while, under the national wage agreement, practically everyone in the public service has got the usual increases in each round. The fault lies, more or less, with Deputies and Senators themselves. The service they give the community should be adequately remunerated. It is vital for the success of Parliament that people should be encouraged to enter politics provided they are capable of helping to shape the destiny of the nation. To fail to remunerate them adequately for their labours is not the type of approach I would expect a Parliament to have towards its Members.

There are people in this House who have lost pensions because they have missed a day or two, something very small like that; they are borderline cases. They occur in all spheres of employment. These cases in particular should be re-examined because the Members who suffer have paid contributions. Pensions are really deferred payments. Money earned by the Deputy or Senator is paid into a fund, but because he has not the necessary eight complete years he is deprived of a pension. If he is not granted a pension he should be refunded the money he paid into the fund.

With regard to the work of public representatives, Senators and Deputies, and I have experience in both Houses, who offer themselves as public representatives and are elected, they immediately cut themselves adrift from family life. The amount of time they can devote to their own personal interests is definitely very limited. The usual way of life is late nights and early mornings. It is true to say that their own homes are never really home, because they have to utilise possibly the finest room in the house as an office; a telephone must be installed if they are to remain in business and they must meet constituents at all hours of the day. Even Sunday is never a free day. That is the type of life of a rural Deputy or Senator. Most Senators have been Deputies and many Senators become Deputies so they have experience in both Houses. Once one is elected as a public representative to either the Seanad or the Dáil one can safely assume that for the rest of one's life one will certainly be approached by many, many people and never again, unless one moves out of the district, will one be able to revert to private life.

It is true, as Senator McGowan said, that the average Senator is also a member of the county council, the vocational education committee, the regional development board, health boards and various other bodies connected with public life. It is necessary for the public representative to keep himself reasonably well informed. He must attend political and various other meetings. Despite the fact that we are Senators we have been elected on political issues. We have got to keep in touch with the ordinary man in the street. We have got to take the lead in many cases. When you are a public representative, and a Member of the Oireachtas, it is necessary to attend meetings of voluntary organisations and other functions held in your constituency and to which you are invited. These things are expensive. I can say from my own experience—and most Senators will share my view—that the remuneration we receive is hardly enough to enable us break even.

It is very important that a public representative should be in a sound financial position. He should never allow himself to get into debt. If he is in a sound financial position like the village blacksmith "he can look the whole world in the face for he owes not any man". He will be able to stand up at a meeting of the County Council, or in the Dáil or Seanad, and speak out his mind plainly and bluntly. Those are the type of public representatives I would like to see. That is the way public representatives from all spheres of life look upon their duties. It is a healthy outlook in any democracy.

I would not like to see the position of a Deputy or a Senator being graded so low that the remuneration paid to them would not encourage others to enter into politics. Politics can be a very satisfying type of life if you take the right interest in it. It is the means whereby you can get things done. Those who enter politics and drop out after a few years lose many golden opportunities which they would have had, had they remained in their professions or in the ordinary work in which they were engaged before they took up politics. They are advanced in years. They are past the age limits. They are unable to apply for positions and because of that they suffer financially. The public representative should be adequately paid, and should be worthy of his hire. We should not fear in any way criticisms from outside or inside of what we are paid, provided we give a good account of our stewardship. The public will soon decide that.

Mr. O'Toole

I, too, should like to welcome the introduction of this Bill. I also welcome the attitude adopted by the Opposition in debating it. There has been so little dissension and so little acrimony in the debate that I am reluctant to drag in one little note. In his speech I thought Senator Lenihan harped a little too much on the ineptitude and incompetence of the Government and of the Minister of Finance. Everyone can cast stones. He also mentioned that the allowances were not retrospective except to 1st July, 1973. I would point out to the Senator that the Government of which he was a member got the report in July, 1972, and did not get it back from the Employer/Labour Conference until December. If that is so, they too can be charged with a certain amount of carelessness in regard to this matter. Senator Lenihan approached this in a very dignified manner and I hope I have made my point in an equally dignified manner.

Another question has been raised here which has highlighted the role of the Seanad in a very spectacular way, that is, that we could stand up here and debate something in a very rational and logical way. We have had many fine contributions on the broader issues of the role of the Senator, the role of the Seanad, the role of the Deputy and of the Dáil.

Senator Robinson mentioned that Senators and Deputies spend too much time in writing letters and that they misconceived their role as public representatives. This is a question which has very wide implications. The fact that Senators and Deputies spend so much time in writing letters and making representations is part of the life they have taken on. They accept it on those terms. Prior to elections, prospective Deputies and Senators tell the public that they are prepared to work on their behalf. They enter politics on this basis. Because of that, the public expect a service from them. It would be at his peril that any Deputy or Senator would ignore the demands of the public in this regard.

Other Senators suggested that many of the problems dealt with by public representatives could be more efficiently and effectively dealt with through ombudsmen, information bureaux, et cetera. Taking into consideration the attitude of the ordinary man in the street towards what is known as the bureaucracy, he would view an ombudsman or bureau with the same jaundiced eye. The Deputy or Senator would find himself going to the ombudsman in the same way as he finds himself today approaching the Minister or a civil servant seeking information. By creating ombudsmen and bureaux, even though basically they are a very good idea, the public attitude towards them would be much the same as it is towards the Civil Service at the moment. You could end up creating a second bureaucracy at a second level. We in the Oireachtas would still be the buffer between the ordinary man in the street and this newly created bureaucracy.

The increases are very welcome when we consider, as other Senators have pointed out, that the increases in other fields of activity since 1968 have been very large and that we have been left out in the cold. We have created a bad image for ourselves in that we have to come to the Dáil and make a case for ourselves. This is what we have to do because we had not the farsightedness to look to our own side of things in the past five years and make sure that our remuneration kept in line with national wage increases.

The most welcome aspect of this Bill is the fact that from now on we will be in a position to take our increases in accordance with other sectors of the community. This will do a great deal to remove the public cynicism which is often expressed when we have something like last week's debate in the Dáil, and people get the wrong impression. It is hard to blame the Press for this. In general the Press give fair expression to what they see, but the public attitude towards the attitude adopted by us in the Oireachtas must be changed. This provision in the Bill whereby we can increase our allowances on a par with other increases in other sectors is the most welcome portion of it.

Mr. Brosnahan

I should like to avail of this opportunity to welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to the House for the first time. I think I am voicing the views of all sides of the House in expressing that welcome.

There are just two points I should like to make. They are a reiteration of points already made several times. One deals with parity of pensions. One of the first motions I ever tabled in this House was on the principle of parity of pensions. It was debated, with the late Dr. Jim Ryan in the Chair. I have pursued this principle on every possible occasion. It was with tremendous satisfaction I observed that the principle has finally been accepted in respect of people in the public services.

If it is logical to amend and increase salaries because of inflation, loss of money values and rising costs, it is equally so to argue that pensions should also be upgraded. The reference to the upgrading of pensions made today by Senator Lenihan is most welcome. I understood from him that a promise has been given by the Minister in the Dáil to look into the matter.

My second point is relevant to sections 5 and 11. Those who were Members of the Houses at the time received from the review body a questionnaire asking about the role of Deputy or Senator as the case might be. It asked about remuneration, hours of work and so forth. Under the section headed "Any other observations" I wrote that part of the outcry which is usually made in public about Members of the Houses voting salaries to themselves—what we are doing here today —arose from the fact that the Houses themselves neglected to make available to themselves what they had already made available to the public, namely, automatic adjustment on the basis of cost of living, inflation and depreciation in money values. This system is good enough for everybody else in the public sector but Members of the Dáil and Seanad never accepted the principle. In this way they left themselves open to the charges which have been made recently in the Press and on every other occasion on which this type of exercise had to take place. I also wrote that when it was thought necessary, for the reasons already given, to award increases in salary to the public in general, this should also be the case for elected representatives.

In that way we could have avoided over the years the type of criticism which has been made by the public because they have a point. The public do not go into great detail when they read the newspapers. They read, in a simplistic way, that the Members of the Oireachtas are voting increases in salaries to themselves. They know that bus fares, telephone charges, postal charges, the price of meat, et cetera, are increasing. Then they see this news item and they say to themselves: “Here are the boys who are responsible for the whole thing voting extra money for themselves.” They do not analyse the situation. I am glad that, finally, under the terms of sections 5 and 11, this type of exercise will never have to be repeated.

Mr. Markey

I did not intend to speak on this Bill because I thought it was one which should have been put through very expeditiously this morning. The longer the debate has gone on, the more I have been prompted to mention two points. Some of the remarks made smacked to me of a certain element of the very symptom which has been at the root of this problem over a number of years, namely, wailing aloud that the public do not understand our position. We come here and tell each other that we are doing a grand job and that the public do not understand what we are doing. This is not a proper approach to a Bill such as this. The public will always accept the work of its public representatives as long as the work is carried out in a proper and efficient manner. It is up to the Parliament of a country to attract men of calibre, of quality and efficiency. This reminds me of an old slogan that a tortoise only makes progress when it sticks its neck out. This is what we should have been doing over the past decade. We should have insisted on what we felt was the appropriate rate for the public representative. We should at least have put ourselves on a par with what is given in equivalent occupations.

It is the function of both the Dáil and Seanad to see that people with the necessary qualifications are enticed into parliamentary life. Such men will not enter Parliament unless they receive an adequate salary.

Another point which I feel has not been sufficiently clarified—I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will do so when he is replying—is that the central reason behind the considerable debate on this Bill has been the delay in bringing such legislation before the Dáil and Seanad. Five years have elapsed since the last pay increase. While the Bill presented to us is a considerable improvement on the position obtaining hitherto, it still needs further clarification. The Parliamentary Secretary said in his opening speech:

The increases now proposed are in line with the increases given to public servants generally under the 12th round and the national agreements.

I should like to take it from that statement that in future if a national agreement is drawn up Deputies and Senators will receive an increase corresponding to the same national agreement. Yet section 5 says that the Government may, whenever they so think fit, by order increase either or both of the allowances. The confusion in my mind relates to the conflict between the opening speech and the actual wording of this section. I should like that point to be clarified. I look forward to the Parliamentary Secretary assuring the House that in future, when a national agreement is made, Deputies and Senators will receive an allowance vis-a-vis the national agreement.

Mr. McCartin

I know that many aspects of the Bill have been discussed by other Senators but I have a few important remarks to make, principally about the role of the elected representative, whether in the Dáil or Seanad.

I am one of those people who believe that the primary purpose of either House of the Oireachtas is to legislate. One must realise that the remuneration must be sufficient to compensate somebody of intelligence and ambition for making the sacrifices necessary in order to become a member of the Oireachtas. The members are primarily legislators but it is not sufficient to be a good legislator, to know about the framing of laws and the wording of the Constitution. We must also be able to understand the wishes of the ordinary people whom we represent. From this point of view the contact which the average Member of this House has with the public is very important.

However, I agree with those who point out that far too many Members of the Oireachtas are merely glorified messengers. Many of us can find examples of people who have never made a single contribution to the legislation in either House but who still are considered to be the right people to be returned by the electorate. It should be the primary ambition of all of us to bring about a situation in which people with problems would consult us only as a last resort. At present too many people who have problems see the elected representative as the first person whom they should contact. I get a number of calls and the vast majority of these could have been adequately dealt with by any local authority official or civil servant. I agree with those who stated we should have citizens advisory officers. I should like to see all the Members of this House working towards a situation in which the average member of the public would come to us only as a last resort.

In neither House of the Oireachtas do we fulfill the role of legislators as it should be fulfilled. We are tied up in a system of Government and Opposition, of what is right and wrong when you belong to a party. Neither House has sufficiently thought out ways and means to work out the best procedure of discharging their functions. There has been too much talk here today about the contribution we can make in this House to debates.

Since I became a Member of this House, what have I achieved through the few words I have spoken? There have been some eloquent speeches made here since I became a Member but what has been achieved through them? Have Members asked themselves this question? A large number count their achievements in the number of lines they succeed in getting in the newspapers. I am not being uncharitable in stating this, but I cannot see what else they hope to achieve. Many of the finest contributions made in this House have been given by Members who walked in with a bundle of papers under their arm, sat down and at the first opportunity made their speech and walked out again. It was obvious they were interested only in putting their own point of view as they did not wait to hear anybody else's. They were not the least bit interested in what other people had to say. Anyone who genuinely wishes to improve on a Bill or whatever other business is in progress in this House must be interested in the views of other Senators. Few of us are so wise as to be able to make our decisions without hearing other people's points of view.

There should be more opportunities for the average Member of either House to participate in the actual making of legislation. It is accepted in this House that this is the prerogative of the Government and perhaps the civil servants. This is a small number of people but various bodies such as teachers, farmers, industrialists, et cetera, should come together occasionally and talk about ways of being more useful. I have never known this House to discuss seriously how they might improve their role or function, how to be more useful to the community, how to eliminate some of the abuses.

There is a particular subject down for discussion. A Member who has not much to say on it widens the subject and brings in other matters in an effort to cover the distance and perhaps to get a headline. This attitude is not good enough. We are all guilty of contributing to this line of thought.

Those who have tendencies and abilities in various fields should have the opportunity of serving on committees and such committees should have a say on all legislation before it comes publicly before the House. This would eliminate the need for people to speak regardless of whether they have views to offer. It would give the people who really care an opportunity to get in at the stage when it becomes important for them to do so and would do a lot towards improving the effectiveness of this House.

We all have our own particular style for getting votes. We cannot say what is most acceptable to the electorate. There are many types of people who can get votes but we must be genuinely interested in making a contribution towards the running of this House, getting through more and better legislation and in making this House a more democratic place. There are many Members who came here after the last general election and who will not, until the Government is dissolved, have an apportunity to change effectively or make a single effective contribution to any legislation. This House should endeavour to develop ways and means of making a more useful contribution to the Legislature.

The adverse publicity given to the increases in salaries of Deputies and Senators in the past stems, as Senators Yeats and O'Higgins pointed out, from ignorance of the salaries available to other people. Many people know when the bus fares are increased but they do not know when the bus drivers and conductors get an increase in wages. They do not know what the local Garda sergeant or the local forestry inspector or teacher is getting. They know what the Deputy is getting because that gets more publicity, and therein lies the reason for some of the adverse comment.

The average citizen will not underestimate the role we can play or the fact that we resign a lot of our freedom the day we become Members of either House and the people will not begrudge us sufficient remuneration for the work we do, but we should endeavour to be effective in this.

Mr. McGlinchey

Coming from the North-West I should like to join with Senator Brosnahan in welcoming the Parliamentary Secretary to this House, the only westerner honoured by the Taoiseach when making his appointments.

References have been made today to the harmonious discussion we have had on this Bill but we must admit this is due primarily to the fact that at a late hour last week the Government went part of the way to meet the wishes of the Opposition. Late or early, it was a welcome sign and as a result we have been able to have a more harmonious discussion this morning than possibly we might have had. When I was elected to this House in 1961 the allowance paid to Dáil Deputies was £1,000 and to Senators £750, a differential of £250. Following the next increase Deputies received £1,500, Senators £1,000, a differential of £500 and following the next increase Deputies received £2,500 and Senators £1,500, a differential of £1,000. Now it is proposed to extend that differential again to more than £1,400 by giving Deputies £3,400 and Senators something more than £2,000. In 12 short years the differential between Deputies and Senators was extended from £250 to £500 to £1,000 and now to £1,400. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary, when he is replying, to explain how this was allowed to come about. I know quite a number of Senators who would agree with me that they would like to see the differential of 1961 maintained to the present day.

I do not intend repeating what others have said, but most of us who are reasonably active in public life realise that the allowance paid to both Deputies and Senators is really only a pittance. Successive Governments since the foundation of the State have failed to place upon Members of the Oireachtas a proper and true value. Now with the advent of the Devlin Report and national wage agreements it would appear that Deputies and Senators will never be placed on a proper financial footing.

My main purpose in rising to speak is to comment on one aspect of the Bill. There has been, particularly in the Dáil, considerable controversy as to the allowances paid to the various parties. It is proposed to give the Opposition £25,000 and the Government backbenchers £10,000. This money is to be spent on secretarial services and research facilities. Therefore the three political parties in this country will get a miserable sum of £35,000. That sum is being spent in order to provide the Members of those parties with the proper advisory services and technical knowhow. It is a pittance for all the parties because the better the research facilities these parties have the better it will be for their members, for the particular party and for the country as a whole.

We should consider for a moment the amount of technical advice available to the manager of a local authority or to the chief executive officer of a health board. It would be interesting to find out in any one county what it costs to provide its technical and research facilities. I should think that in any one county it would cost as much as the £35,000 proposed in this Bill for the three political parties. It was said that 1968 was a beginning when they were given £10,000, but as we look to the future we all realise that research facilities for all of us are becoming much more important. I should like to see, at some stage, possibly an all-party committee examining this aspect of politics. I am quite sure if they were to do this they would come to the conclusion that it is in the interests of the nation as a whole that this sum of money be greatly increased in the not too distant future.

Dr. Martin

I should like to begin by welcoming the Bill. I have no doubt that this increase in salaries is richly deserved and I wonder if it is, in fact, adequate. I was particularly impressed by the remark made by Senators Dolan and McGowan on the work of those Senators who are so much concerned with the work of local government, health boards, other committees and with other social and public occasions throughout the country. More privileged Senators do not realise the amount of very dedicated, hard and important work which is being done at that level and which makes this increase seem well earned if, indeed, not inadequate.

I should like to move on to those sections of the Parliamentary Secretary's speech which had to do with the role of the parliamentarian, of the two Houses of Parliament, the Oireachtas itself and to some extent the role of the Deputy and the Senator. This has been argued on both sides of the House and argued adequately. The role of the Deputy as a messenger boy, as it has been described, approaching departmental personages and Departments of Government for individual members of his constituency, is obviously a role that is being overused, although I would take the point made by Senator McCartin that it does lead to a far greater rapport with the needs and the grievances, the lacunae, in Irish life than would be achieved if all this activity of representation were to be handed over to a more impersonal body such as an ombudsman or a citizens' advice committee.

One of the disadvantages of such a role has not been stressed. It is an important disadvantage in a situation where one party is powerfully entrenched in an area, and when the Deputy is seen as the chief means of gaining a privilege, or even a right, for a citizen the chances are that, in those who have not backed the right horse and who support the other party, there grows up a sense of frustration, a sense of remoteness and a sense that they are unlikely to get a fair share of either rights or privileges. That is a strong disadvantage and it is one that exists in the more remote areas where the party machine is seen as being more powerful than even the Government or the Civil Service itself.

This brings us on to the notion of the legislative role of the Houses of Parliament, and particularly of the Seanad, which, everybody admits, is the primary role of Parliament. The Parliamentary Secretary anticipated that these increases will be subject to criticism. He seems to be admitting some kind of failure on our part either to represent ourselves to the public or to perform our functions properly.

A just charge against the Seanad, in particular, would be that it tends to do very little more than ratify what is going on in the Dáil; whereas it has a great deal more leisure and time available to it and a greater, in a sense, diversity of talents coming from different vocational areas. It has a greater opportunity, I think, to act more philosophically, more creatively and more dynamically in the function of assessing its own role and assessing the role of its Members. For instance, on the Order Paper for today, there are a number of motions down which we will never get to. Many of them are non-contentious motions about the Arts Council, the Manuscripts Commission, et cetera. It looks as if we will perhaps never get round to these. We seem to be spending all the time in ratifying what the Dáil does.

That is not sufficient for the Seanad. The Seanad should be generating thought and energy about the very institutions of Government which are so important to us and which have undergone fairly radical changes since our accession to the European Economic Community. Many of us are aware that a great deal of our power and sovereignty has shifted to Brussels. In other words, power has become that much more remote from, say, the outlying regions of Ireland. At the same time there has been a huge move towards centralisation of government; that has been the whole tendency of our society.

There has been very little philosophic debate on that within the House but there has been an extraordinary amount outside the House. I am thinking of a series of very important studies like Charles McCarthy's The Distasteful Challenge, T.J. Barrington's Addendum to the Devlin Report, various lectures published by Professor Ivor Browne, A Man and his Environment, The Human Development of Towns and Villages, The Need for Survival, Environment and Mental Health—highly philosophic and challenging articles about the way our society is organised. Similarly, a whole series of challenging pamphlets from such a writer as, say, Desmond Fennell, particularly his latest ones, Sketches of a New Ireland and the views put forward, say, by the Cearta Sibhialta na Gaeltachta about the whole notion of perhaps self-government for the Gaeltacht. All these have one particular trend in them and that trend is the devolution of power, the giving to local communities of more and more control over their own affairs.

I take this as an illustration of the very point raised: the figure we cut as a Seanad, as a legislative House, as a centre of political energy in the eyes of the public. Senators McGowan, Dolan and McCartin represented to us the role of the Senator throughout the country. It is obvious that at that level they are working hard, but the general profile which we got was, I think, one of considerable latitude and one in which the Seanad seems just to trot behind the enactments of the Dáil in a manner sometimes almost humiliating. Consequently, with reference to that particular area, the Seanad should examine itself and, if necessary, think in terms of committees; but it should actually become more dynamic in considering its own role.

I should like, having said that, to welcome the Bill. It is unexceptional in every possible way and it has been of course harmoniously received right across the House. I hope the Seanad will make some more positive and dynamic attempt to assess the function of its own role within the Irish body politic.

Dr. West

I should like to echo Senator Martin's plea for a more expansive approach to the Seanad by our Government. I am not going to be hypocritical and say I oppose a rise in salary for myself or indeed for Members of the Dáil, Ministers, the Taoiseach or the Attorney General. Particularly in the case of Dáil Deputies their services have been undervalued by the nation for many years. Many TDs who have no other occupation have found their previous salary barely covers their expenses. If they have a wife and family to keep there is very little left over unless they have some other means of income. I welcome the increases being given. In the case of Members of the Lower House I would say the increases should have been greater. I am glad we will not have to go through all this hassel every time we wish to further increase the salaries. I hope they will be tied in some way to the national wage agreements and that when there is a 12th round, a 13th or 14th round the salaries of Members of the Oireachtas will be adjusted accordingly.

When one considers the problem of agreeing to a rise in one's own salary it inevitably makes one question one's function as a Senator and, in fact, the whole function of the Seanad. I echo Senator Martin's eloquent plea for a more constructive use of the Seanad. I also feel that in the two-and-a-half years I have been a Member of this House we have just been acting as a rubber stamp for the Dáil on so many occasions, that there are many other functions which we could fulfil and many other ways in which we could show the public that we are of real benefit to the nation. I hope the present Government will consider them and will not just feed us with legislation which has been passed by the Lower House and give the general impression that the whole idea is to get Bills through the Seanad with the maximum speed and the minimum amount of fuss. People on this side of the House, and particularly the Independents, should make a protest about this, should ensure that the role of the Seanad is expanded and should do their utmost to see to it that we have an opportunity of fully carrying out our duties as Members of an Upper Chamber of the Parliament.

Most of the motions on the Order Paper are non-contentious. In any case, the Government have an enormous majority and can afford to be generous. There are motions dealing with the Report on the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Systems and the Report of the Council of Trustees of the National Library. These are not motions which will raise contentious issues. They are not motions in which there will be a vote at the end which will signify a Government defeat. In any case, as I have said, the Government have probably a bigger majority now than any Government since 1937, so they can afford to be generous. They can afford to take these motions. They can afford to deal with subjects for which this House is eminently suited and which will not be dealt with by the Dáil.

I realise we have been sitting for three months and there is tacit agreement—it is more than tacit agreement: it is part of our Standing Orders—that if possible we should take one motion per month. That is too little because I do not think we are under great pressure for most of the year. In the three months we have been sitting we have taken one motion. As I pointed out on the Order of Business this morning, the Independent Members have made strenuous efforts to take Motion No. 10, the motion dealing with Northern Ireland. It is always possible to dig up reasons why one should not take a motion such as Motion No. 10.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I have to ask the Senator to relate his remarks more to the Bill before the House.

Dr. West

Yes, I will do so but I am trying to make a general point and I was giving a specific example. One can always find reasons why a certain motion should or should not be discussed. Unless we kick up a bit of a fuss on this side of the House none of these motions will ever be taken, in particular the motions which are critical. I am not saying that we would have had an easier passage with the last administration; indeed it was just as difficult. It is symptomatic not of a party attitude but of a general attitude to the Seanad.

It is time we changed this attitude and that there was general agreement that more use should be made of us as Senators, that more use should be made of the fact that we have a great deal more time than the other House —we have less constituency work to do, we have a wide range of talents, there are areas of expertise in this House which perhaps the other House does not have, and we are eminently suited for dealing with these issues. Many of them are clearly non-political issues and there is absolutely no reason why we could not work harder and therefore give the nation more benefit for the £100,000 per year that is paid by the national Exchequer to finance the operations of this House.

I should also like to welcome the more expansive approach to the need for secretarial help and research facilities. I hope the Government will look into this whole question and do something to increase our effectiveness, to allow us to use our talents, to help us to make the best use of our time and to assemble facts and figures on particular items whenever they are required. The university Members of the House are in a privileged position in that they can usually go back to their institutions and dig up relevant information which sometimes it is hard to get without the library facilities. For other Members of the Seanad there are very few facilities of this nature and unless one has a real back-up service, and unless the Government provide the finance for this, a lot of the money that is spent on the running of this House is generally wasted.

Finally, I should like to add my voice to the other Members who have spoken about the position of pensions and widows' allowances. I am glad to hear that the Government are to look at this whole area again. As in many other categories, the pension allowances, and particularly allowances for widows with families, are inadequate. I hope that they will also be tied to a sliding scale, that we will not have to debate a motion every time the widows' allowances are to be raised and that they will automatically be raised on a general level. This level should reflect the inflation and rise in the cost of living. I hope that the older Members of the House, those who have retired and their widows and families will receive the benefits which are not fixed but which float with the general cost of living and reflect the current situation.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

I join with other Senators in welcoming this Bill. I do not intend to take up the time of the House but I have a few remarks to make. I should like to refer to something which is not in the Bill and which I believe should have been included. There is the anomaly that when the Dáil is dissolved Deputies cease to be on the pay-roll while those of us who are Members of the Seanad continue on the pay-roll until the result of the Seanad election. If we are fortunate enough to be re-elected it means that we are continuously on salary. We would all agree that this is an anomaly that should be cleared up. When the Dáil is dissolved and a Deputy has to go back to his constituency it is an expensive exercise to try to get re-elected. Whether he is re-elected or not, in many cases the expense is the same. The bill has to be met irrespective of whether he is on a Deputy's salary or on the pension, if he is lucky enough to qualify for one when the election is over. Many of us might be unfortunate enough to have a popular ex-Deputy put on our panel for election to the Seanad and the result might not be too helpful to those of us who aspire to continue in the Seanad.

I do not know if my information is correct but we must be one of the very few countries in Europe and indeed in the EEC in which such a situation exists. Since we entered the EEC and Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas have been going to the European Parliament and meeting parliamentarians from other countries, they carry back information to us that makes us envious of the members of parliament in some of the member countries of the EEC. I would respectfully suggest that something should be done in relation to this. An examination should be made of what is happening in the more progressive countries of Europe so that this type of anomaly would not exist. Parliamentarians in other countries are treated much better than parliamentarians in this country. When a Bill of this kind is introduced in the Dáil or the Seanad we always seem to be apologetic in voting ourselves an increase in our salaries. Perhaps that is understandable.

The general public think that we are too well paid for the amount of work we have to do. It is time something was done about this cheese-paring. On the day on which the Dáil is dissolved a Deputy ceases to be on the pay-roll. I regret that something is not being done about it in this Bill. I am surprised that, with all the amendments which were brought before the Dáil, somebody did not put forward an amendment on these lines. It may appear unusual for a Senator to be making a case for Deputies when they have allowed not only this but many similar Bills to pass through the Dáil without adverting to this anomaly. Having said that, I welcome the Bill and hope that in the very near future something will be done to bring the Members of the Dáil into line with what is being done in the more progressive countries in Europe.

Mr. Deasy

When Senator McGlinchey was talking about actual figures in terms of money it struck me as a bit vulgar to introduce the matter of money at all. Why do we have to have fixed sums for Opposition and for Government backbenchers, et cetera? Surely it would be more satisfactory if these services were provided for all Deputies and Senators and that there were no allowances. A special service should be provided for the Front Bench of the Opposition to counteract the back-up which the Government has from the Civil Service, but that certain sums should be allocated in substitution for that service seems rather ridiculous.

When I first came to the Seanad I assumed that this type of service would be provided; that we would have research and advisory services and technical knowledge at our disposal. We have nothing whatsoever. These services should be provided. This building might not be capable of holding and servicing the type of proposals envisaged. In that respect, the Parliamentary Secretary might consider balancing the real estate value of this building against one which would be able to withstand the pressures which such a system would demand and have it, perhaps, ten miles out in the countryside.

Senator Martin made a valid case for bringing our type of debate and work up to scratch. As he pointed out, it is not good enough to have us passing Bills which have gone through the Dáil. We should introduce Bills in the Seanad. I should like Senator West and Senator Martin, who have experience, to suggest some ideas in this regard. We did not come here to do this type of work, much of which is quite boring and not to the point.

We could fulfil a very useful function. As Senator West has stated, there are numerous motions and Bills which will not be debated and which should be, if we had more time and were not restricted by the Dáil Bills.

Going on to the function of a Senator, in certain cases it is very much like that of a Deputy. Probably it is not the same for the university Senators but even more boring for them to come here because we have quite a lot of constituency work with which to deal. People have mentioned the service which Deputies give the public. I sometimes wonder if we do not give the public a disservice in our attempts to win favour from them. We have a political system which is geared to keep the Deputy or Senator in power and not, to queer the pitch, as they say. It is not an honest system. If graft is involved, it is involuntary. We take political advantage out of the fact that people rely on us to get things done. The man who is elected is the one who can get things done. Very often this is to the detriment of a section of the community.

In our efforts to promote the case of a person who has consulted us, we pressurise officials and civil servants to obtain this favour. The end result is that this person jumps the queue. People who are more deserving can quite often be relegated and will not get justice. It is part of the system which is quite revolting. Our whole system of Government in this respect and the manner in which we deal with the Civil Service should be reviewed. It is a system where the civil servants feel they must please the politicians and the politicians, in return, feel that they give the civil servants a free rein. It is a thoroughly dishonest method. We should see that people who are most deserving get their requirements first.

We are tied up continuously, as Senator McCartin has stated, with constituency work, which is too trivial a matter. Our time should be devoted to legislation, bringing about reforms which are badly needed. Definitely, we should have facilities such as a citizens' advice bureau, and an ombudsman. The vast majority of the problems with which we deal should be dealt with by these people.

In conclusion, the committee service would be very valuable in the Seanad. We could get out of the stranglehold in which we are at present, where we are committed almost entirely to passing Dáil legislation. Perhaps with the committee system we could initiate reforms and Bills which are badly needed.

Mr. W. O'Brien

I should like to welcome this Bill, like the other Senators. I am very happy at the attitude of all parties to the Bill. We have heard many suggestions as to what the role of the Senator should be. Some feel that it should be that of the legislator. Others feel they should be representatives. Whichever we prefer is a personal matter. The vital thing is John Citizen; the people are what matters. This has been said by some people of this increase for public representatives. This discussion is a very good one because it brought home to people the exact amount of salary paid to both Deputies and Senators. Many find it hard to believe that Members of the Government are prepared to work so many long hours and to serve the people for such a meagre salary. I often wondered if the position of Deputy or Senator were advertised in local papers, not associated with a political party, what would be the functions and duties outlined by the interview board for the applicants. I do not believe anybody would apply for such a position when they heard the hours they would work and the functions they would have to perform. It is very difficult to convince people of the amount of salary we receive: they believe it is higher.

Graft was mentioned but I do not believe there has been any in politics for a long time. The service rendered by a public representative could only be given by somebody with a vocation. The Departments are in no small way responsible for the amount of work which is loaded on public representatives. Take, for example, the social welfare guide. The ordinary man in the street is not capable of digesting the information it contains and knowing exactly to what he is entitled. The same applies to old age pension, widows and orphans pensions and to income tax forms. The general public cannot understand these forms and I do not blame them because even public representatives at times find them difficult to follow.

If the public representative did not exist what would the impact be on local authorities or on the Departments? How many people would have to be employed in a local authority to deal with the queries from people? The same would apply to a Department. I think that the service rendered by public representatives is needed.

There was mention made today of the service of an ombudsman. I have seen that in Australia, where this system is in operation, only 1,500 made representations to have their problems solved. Any public representative who is active in his constituency will deal with between three and four thousand people in a year.

The salary is not adequate to give the type of service necessary. In 1973 the public representative who wishes to give his full time and proper attention to a constituency has little time for his private business. I welcome the increase which was long overdue.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Kenny)

I wish to express my appreciation, and admiration, to the Members of the Seanad of the standard of debate and to compliment them on the expeditious and precise manner in which they dealt with this Bill during the Second Reading. In the course of this debate very little that was acrimonious was mentioned, no personalities were introduced, no unparliamentary expressions were used, yet each speaker had his own points of view, argumentative or otherwise, which he placed before the House in a constructive, realistic and logical manner.

I should like to comment on some of the major points raised during the course of the debate. It is very clear that there is general support for the provisions of the Bill from all sides of the House. There were some criticisms, and suggestions, which were not deeply involved with the Bill or its contents but with the Seanad and its possible reform to enable it to play a wider role in the national life. The criticisms were constructive and the suggestions made were reasonable. The debate on the Bill hinged around a few main factors: allowances and salaries and the comparisons of these salaries with the salaries or allowances of other groups; Secondly, retrospective payments of increases; thirdly, increases shall henceforth be paid by order not by an Act; fourthly, some further suggestions, and criticisms, were voiced on the Government and Opposition allowances for secretarial expenses and for expenses regarding research and information. Last, but not least, most of the Christian-like people, knowing the facts at home and knowing that some of the personalities who went through this House got little benefit, pleaded and appealed to the Minister for parity of pensions, which may come or which were guaranteed to come during the debate in the Dáil.

Regarding salaries and allowances it must be understood that these were calculated and assessed on a basis and during a period which goes back for the last two years at least, by a review body and later on while the national agreement was in being. This had to be further filtered by a conference of the Employer/Labour Conference. The review body, through questionnaires and detailed information received and secured from every possible social walk of life, came to a conclusion, and on this were based guidelines for the assessment of the salaries now produced in this Bill. A salary comparison was made by Deputy Yeats and the appropriateness of the comparison with skilled and semiskilled workers who normally benefit from minimal increases in wage revisions has been doubted by the Senator. At least, he expressed reservations regarding the figures. On the comparison with civil servants it must be remembered that the salaries of parliamentarians and higher civil servants were considered simultaneously by the highly qualified and responsible body set up by the Government to advise on higher remuneration in the public sector.

These are not the Government's figures but they made their figures on the guidelines suggested by this body, and, after detailed examination, they arrived at the figures now contained in this Bill. Many Senators mentioned retrospection and phrased their query in this particular way: "a retrospection recommended by the Employer/ Labour Conference." Many Senators have used this expression, or similar ones. I must again emphasise that the Employer/Labour Conference made no recommendations at all about parliamentarians. They merely stated that on the basis of certain assumptions the remuneration would be at certain levels on certain rates. The Government were free to decide on any operative date and there is no question of their having breached any Employer/ Labour Conference recommendation in this respect. They decided, in their wisdom, that these increases should be paid on 1st July. It was a wise choice because I know, coming from a rural area where people are more politically inclined than in urban areas or in cities, that there would be a public outcry if benefits were given retrospectively to people in the higher grades and withheld from people in the social welfare recipient classes.

Regarding the allowance made for the first time to the Government party and to the Opposition party, this allowance was first started in 1938 for the Opposition party but it was not recognised, in principle, until 1968. It was then a figure of £15,000. For the first time the Government party will now receive an allowance of £10,000 for secretarial expenses. It must be understood that in every party individual Deputies pay a certain amount every month to defray the expenses of secretarial staff. I do not know how much this amounts to in the Fianna Fáil Party but it is a pretty widely-known sum in the Fine Gael Party.

Senator Lenihan, dealing with this allowance for the Opposition and for the Government, implied that a blunder had been made because it was not included in the original Bill. If blunders were made blunders have been made before now. Somebody said years ago that to err is human and all humans know that blunders have been made but, in this particular case, these alleged blunders have been satisfactorily corrected in a very amiable way, by consultation and compromise. It may have been the business instinct or the bargaining instinct of the Fianna Fáil Party or the tendency to compromise within the Government party that led to this, but at least it has led to an amiable agreement. In the Dáil, after many hours of acrimonious dissension, this was fixed at £25,000 for the Opposition parties and at £10,000 for the Government party.

Senator Robinson made a wonderful speech in a very academic way and she suggested that everybody in the Dáil and in the Seanad should approach parliamentary life in an academic way—in other words, that we should all be legislators. If we approached the long path to Leinster House in the academic way she suggested the Kildare Street entrance of Leinster House would be strewn with the bodies of disappointed candidates and with frustrated applicants both for the Seanad and for the Dáil. People must understand that unless you mix with your constituents you have not a hope of getting into the Dáil. It is a 24-hour a day job, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out in his speech. You are at the beck and call of every constituent, because if you are not then your colleague or your opponent will be. I should like to tell any prospective academic candidate for Dáil Éireann that if he went down to the West, to Kilbeggan or to Cavan or any such place outside the limits of Lucan he would get a very great surprise.

The same Senator asked why should there be criticism of salaries for Deputies and Senators. There are bound to be criticisms because that is one trait of the Irish character. We are the greatest "knockers" in the world. Some people here might think that Deputies get paid; they do not. Deputies get allowances and so do Senators; but office holders get salaries. That is the kind of distinction I did not know existed until I had to come in here, at a few hours' notice, and stand in for the Minister.

Why are people so resentful and critical of salaries given to Senators and Deputies? First of all, we have to wait too long for an increase. Therefore, over that period the increase must be large and we hear criticisms from most counties, where honest rural people live, such as: "He is getting a rise of £1,000". They rarely realise that this increase covers a very, very long period. That is one of the reasons why people are so critical.

I have another reason for that resentment and it is the greatest reason of all. We have been given the complete and absolute free hand down through the years in giving ourselves our own increases. Everyone says: "When they get the freedom to give themselves something, they take the lot." We have at last dispensed with this liberty by withdrawing it in this Bill. I think that by far the wisest section in this Bill is the section that provides that in future, by order, we may give ourselves an increase, and that, if there is any controversy about it, within 21 sitting days that order may be annulled and no increase may be forthcoming. Up to this there has been an outcry in the country for some independent, neutral body or tribunal to assess our value and calculate the sum to which we would be entitled. That is now being done here. It is another good point in this Bill.

I seem to have Senator Robinson on my mind, but in answer to her and Senator Markey's question as to why not write review criteria into the Bill, nobody can be certain that the institutions we have at the moment, such as the Employer/Labour Conference, will continue indefinitely, or will continue in their present form. Neither can we say whether there will be more national pay agreements. Nobody can be sure of that. This national pay agreement was established over the past three years just to keep in line the increases for various bodies in the country as a kind of a bulwark against inflation. It would be too difficult to write the review criteria into the Bill. Already, without actually writing it into the Bill, the Government have given a guarantee in the Dáil that the remuneration of parliamentarians will be increased whenever there is a nationally accepted formula for so doing. This guarantee is just as good as writing it into the Bill. Senator Yeats was against that, and so also was Senator Sanfey. Senator Mary Robinson suggested that this review criteria should be written in.

Senator McGlinchey queried the widening of the differential between Deputies and Senators. The Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector carried out a full survey of what Deputies and Senators do and of the time taken up by their public duties. On this basis, the review body proposed new rates for Deputies and Senators which, in their view, represented the proper relationship between the two. In other words, £3,440 for a Deputy and £1,860 for a Senator. The figures proposed in the Bill, namely £3,416 for a Deputy and £2,023 for a Senator represent a more favourable relationship from the viewpoint of a Senator. I think that answers Senator McGlinchey. If there are any more points which need clarification they may be raised on Committee Stage. Each section will be examined and gone into in detail. If there are any more criticisms, they may be raised at that time.

I was very appreciative of the fact that we have in the Seanad many Christian people who realise that there are people throughout the country who have been dealt with unfairly legally in regard to pension parity for former Deputies and Senators. Each of us realises very well that there are individuals all over the country who really need a certain amount of financial help because over the years—as can be seen from the figures supplied —salaries and allowances in this House were very niggardly. The Minister indicated in the Dáil that he is not unsympathetic to the idea of making some move towards parity of pensions. I can repeat that sentiment. This matter is under consideration at present.

I might mention, however, that a provision for pension parity would not be appropriate to the present Bill. Parity of pensions could not possibly be included in this Bill. This parity of pensions must be provided by resolution. The procedure for amending the Members' pension scheme is by way of resolution passed by each House of the Oireachtas. To end, I just want to mention that Senators Lenihan, McAuliffe, Sanfrey, Butler, McGowan, Harte, Brosnahan and West, mentioned in public their sympathetic consideration of the parity principle.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.