Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Dec 1977

Vol. 87 No. 8

Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial, Parliamentary and Judicial Offices (Amendment) Bill, 1977 ( Certified Money Bill ) : Second Stage.

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

Minister for the Public Service (Mr. Colley)

This Bill is necessary to provide for the remuneration and superannuation of Ministers of State who will be appointed when the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1977, is brought into operation. I am also taking the opportunity presented by the Bill to effect a change which will simplify the procedure that applies when the remuneration of parliamentarians and the Judiciary is being revised.

In my address to this House when the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1977, was under discussion I dealt at some length with the huge growth in the volume and complexity of the duties of Government Ministers both on the domestic level and on the international scene. There was, I think, general acceptance that these burdens have become almost intolerable and that action must be taken to alleviate them. Towards this end it is proposed, as Members of the House are aware, to appoint ten Ministers of State to replace the existing seven Parliamentary Secretaries.

It is intended that the duties and responsibilities of the Ministers of State will be significantly wider than those at present performed by Parliamentary Secretaries and this will be reflected in the salary levels. The Government have decided that a salary of £4,727 would be appropriate for a Minister of State, as compared with £3,720 currently payable to a Parliamentary Secretary and this is provided for under section 6 of the Bill. This salary would, of course, be payable in addition to the Minister's allowance as a Member of the Dáil or Seanad Éireann.

In sections 8 and 9 (1) provision is made for the payment of pensions to Ministers of State. It is also proposed in the Bill to simplify the present complicated procedures involved when orders are made adjusting the pay of parliamentarians. Under the existing legislation, a draft of the order is laid before Dáil Éireann and, if a resolution disapproving of the draft is passed by the Dáil within the next subsequent 21 days on which it has sat after the draft is laid before it, the order shall not be made. If no resolution is passed the Government may make the order and again present it to Dáil Éireann. This procedure involves laying two separate documents on the same matter before the Dáil with an interval of between two and six months if a recess intervenes between the laying of the documents. This involves unnecessary duplication and can give the mistaken impression that parliamentarians are getting pay increases on the double. It is proposed to change the procedure so as to eliminate this double submission of documents to Dáil Éireann by providing that orders will automatically come into effect after 21 sitting days unless resolutions annulling them are passed by the Dáil within that period. I feel certain that Members of the Seanad will consider it a worth-while improvement in the procedure governing this matter.

The legislative provisions relating to the revision of the remuneration of the Judiciary have, for some time past, been the same as those for parliamentarians. It is proposed, accordingly, to amend the legislative procedures for the making of orders increasing judicial remuneration in the same manner as is proposed for parliamentarians.

When the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) (No. 2) Act comes into operation the office of Parliamentary Secretary will be abolished. Section 9 (2) of the present Bill enables a notional Parliamentary Secretary salary rate to be determined from time to time so that the pensions payable to, or in respect of, former Parliamentary Secretaries may be revised in conjunction with the revision of the pensions of other office holders. This Bill follows naturally on the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) (No. 2) Act since its main purpose is to provide for the remuneration and superannuation of the proposed new office of Minister of State. I confidently recommend the Bill to the Seanad.

Mr. Cooney

As far as my party are concerned this Bill is acceptable to us. The increases in levels of salaries proposed for the new Ministers of State are justified not merely for the reasons which the Minister has said, the proposed increased duties for these officers, but, having regard to the volume of work which Parliamentary Secretaries had to discharge, for that reason alone they are justified. We welcome also the proposed change in procedure for implementing increases in allowances to Members of the Oireachtas. As the Minister said, the previous procedure gave the public, unwittingly, the impression that they were getting two increases when, in fact, merely one was being sanctioned. On the question of allowances for Members, this might be the appropriate time to raise the question of the level of allowances for Members of the Seanad. Because of the differing status of the two Houses it is right that that difference should be marked by a salary differential but having regard to the demand made on the time of Members of the Seanad, the differential is unduly prejudicial to Senators. A Senator's allowance is roughly half that of a Deputy but the amount of time which a Senator has to devote to his duties in the House and to the constituency duties is not by any means half as much as that which a Deputy has to devote.

This House has been meeting certainly once a week and in the majority of weeks since this session commenced has been sitting twice. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the urgency of Government business may demand even longer hours of sitting or extra days of sitting. This will impose demands on Senators to be present. In addition, at a constituency level, Senators—this is not often realised—are regarded as being more or less full-time politicians, the same as Deputies and are expected to be available for constituency work in the same way that Deputies are available. There is a feeling among the general public that Senators are paid the same as Deputies. Of course, the reality is far from that.

There is a practical difficulty for Senators in that the amount of allowance paid makes it imperative that a Senator must have other means of earning his livelihood. Very few occupations will permit a Senator to give the time needed to discharge his Oireachtas and constituency duties and allow him the necessary time off from that occupation. Even if a person is self-employed it is not possible to run a business efficiently and be absent for the amount of time that attention to the Oireachtas duties requires. If a person is employed the position is possibly all the more difficult for the Senator in question. I suggest to the Minister, and the Government, that consideration at this stage be given to a look at the level of Senators' allowances with a view to raising them to a more realistic figure having regard to the demands made on Senators' time.

I welcome the proposed change in regard to judicial salaries. The level of judicial salaries, in the case of some members of the Judiciary, is high and it did lead to an unsatisfactory public response when these were published twice under the old system. There was not a proper appreciation on the part of the public that essential to the independent status of the Judiciary is the need to ensure that Judiciary are paid at a high level. Apart from the question of independence there is the other point I referred to, that it is important that the proper quality of people will accept appointment to the Bench. It is important that they would not feel that their level of salaries was going to be the subject of sarcastic or critical public comment. Indeed, that will happen on the occasion of the publication of increases because envy is such a prevailing characteristic of modern society that increases for people at that level of salary will inevitably draw envious and critical comment. It is important that the amount of comment would not be exaggerated and that it would not be duplicated, as happened under the old system. For those reasons I welcome the Bill and I commend seriously to the Minister what I said about Senators' allowances.

Mrs. Robinson

I welcome the general intent and purpose of the Bill. However, I should like to ask the Minister some questions about one specific aspect of it and that concerns the payment of pensions to Ministers of State. I want to ask these questions because it came to my attention early this year that the pensions for Members of the Oireachtas are blatantly discriminatory. Although the pension scheme provides for a widow's right to benefit from a pension it makes no provision for a widower's pension. I raised this matter earlier in the year with the former Minister for the Public Service, to be precise in March last. I wrote to the former Minister, and on 12th May I had a response from the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Public Service in which he said:

"Please refer again to your letter of 14th March, 1977 about the operation of the pension scheme for Members of the Oireachtas.

As you are no doubt aware, the Oireachtas is in line with public sector pension schemes generally in providing widows' pensions but not widowers' pensions. This, as you indicate, raises the question of the applicability of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974 to the situation. I understand however, that in the case of Linson Ltd., Manufacturing Chemists, the Equal Pay Officer recently ruled that the company was contravening the Act in providing different pension terms for female compared with male employees. This decision is being appealed by the employers so the legal positions should, no doubt, be clarified fairly soon. The public sector schemes will then be reexamined, if necessary."

It is my understanding—and I would welcome clarification on this from the Minister—that this appeal has not in fact been proceeded with by Linson Ltd. Following receipt of that letter last May I then submitted the matter to the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I understand that the Seanad committee considered the matter, wrote to the Minister and considered the letter from the Minister on the question, in which once again there was a repetition that the pension scheme was in line with pension schemes in the public service and was openly admitted to be discriminatory. This appeared to be going to continue to be the position as far as the Minister was concerned.

This raises a very fundamental issue, because those who are elected to either House serve as the representatives of the people. Surely in 1977 the allowances and pension rights of Members, male and female, should be equal. Male and female Members of each House pay out the same amount monthly—it is stopped from our salaries—towards our pensions. I think it is absolutely outrageous that this matter has not been changed long before now, and indeed one must ask why it ever existed. I suppose that it was thought inconceivable that a married woman would be a representative of the people in either House. Happily, there are more of us all the time. One of us is about to become a Minister of State, because the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy will become one of the new Ministers of State. Therefore, I would like to know whether the provision in this Bill for payment of pensions to Ministers of State ensures that the position as far as she is concerned has been corrected, and whether her pension right will include a pension right to her widower. Secondly, I would like a specific undertaking from the Minister that he will bring in a new pension scheme for Members of both Houses which provide for pension rights for widowers.

Mr. Markey

I do not think anybody disagrees with this legislation. I want to make two observations. The first is about the reservation I had when the other Bill, the Ministerial Amendment Bill, was going through this House last week. It was in regard to the appointment of these Ministers of State in lieu of existing Parliamentary Secretaries. It appeared to me that we were putting the cart before the horse. We were establishing positions and then creating salaries for those positions but yet it was never spelled out what the duties appropriate to these positions and salaries would be other than the Minister at the time telling us that the responsibilities would be somewhat heavier than those pertaining to Parliamentary Secretaries. There is no point in going back on that at this stage.

I want to raise a question with the Minister and I hope he will answer it in his reply. It has always struck me as an anomaly in regard to the payment of pensions for Members of this House, and Members of the Dáil, that they have to serve eight years before they become eligible or qualify for a pension. This sometimes creates an anomaly, even an injustice. We have seen instances in the past where people were only one or two weeks short of an eight year period but did not qualify for a pension. Would the Minister consider introducing an amendment to the effect that eight years or the serving of two successive terms in the House would qualify a person for a pension in future? That would rid us of this anomaly which has pertained.

Another point which has been suggested to me is that the basis on which pensions are calculated, eight-fortieths, should be eight-thirtieths. I am more concerned about the eight years or two successive terms in this House or in the Dáil.

Minister for the Public Service (Mr. Colley)

I should like to thank the Senators who spoke and welcomed this Bill. A few points were raised. While I appreciate that the Bill may appear to have presented an opportunity to raise them, strictly speaking, a number of the points raised are not matters relevant to this Bill but I will try to deal with them as well as I can off-the-cuff.

Senator Cooney referred to the level of allowances paid to Senators as against those paid to Deputies. I could go into detail about the number of hours served in each House, comparison and so on but most of us know that that is not a true comparison. We all know that a great deal of the work carried out by Members of the Oireachtas in either Houses is done outside the Houses of the Oireachtas. This whole question of fixing the appropriate level of remuneration for Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas has always presented a great deal of difficulty. Some years ago, in an effort to deal with this problem, a review committee, under Mr. Devlin, was set up. They went into this matter in considerable detail and reported. They recommended certain levels of remuneration and, indeed, to those interested the report went into considerable detail on various aspects of the work of Members of the Oireachtas, the amount of time spent and so on. They eventually recommended certain levels of remuneration.

The intention at the time was that those levels would be implemented and thereafter that they would be reviewed from time to time. Subject to some exceptions which I will mention, the national pay agreements have been applied to the remuneration of Members of both Houses and of office holders. The report of the Employer-Labour Conference was received— speaking from memory—either just before or after the change of Government in 1973. Certainly, it was one of the matters that fell to be dealt with by the former Government at an early stage. My own suspicion is that if they had had to deal with it later in their term of office they might have dealt with it differently. As it happened, it was one of the early matters they had to deal with and, mistakenly, in my opinion, they dealt with it on the basis of not applying the figures recommended by the Employer-Labour Conference from the date recommended.

Since then the national pay agreement increases have been applied, except in the case of office holders. Since 1975 national pay agreement increases have not been applied to the remuneration of office holders, that is members of the Government, the Ceann Comhairle, Leas-Cheann Comhairle in Dáil Éireann, and the Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach in Seanad Éireann. The national pay agreement increases have only been applied to the allowances as Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Whatever argument one may have about the implementation of the Employer-Labour Conference or otherwise, at least there is a basis established objectively by persons who are not or have not been Members of either House of the Oireachtas on which we can stand and the national pay agreements applied since seem to me to be a reasonable approach to this matter. I would be slow to interfere with that basis unless it could be clearly demonstrated that these figures had got very much out of line, and that it was necessary to have a totally new review of the situation. I do not think that can be demonstrated at the moment and, consequently, I would not like to hold out any hope that there would be any change in the basis of remuneration of Members of either House of the Oireachtas other than in accordance with national pay agreements.

With regard to the point raised by Senator Robinson, I should like to say I think she is mistaken in imagining that the reason there was no provision for payment of a pension to a widower of a Member of either House of the Oireachtas, or indeed of an office holder, was that it was not thought conceivable that a married woman could become a Member of either House of the Oireachtas or an office holder. The explanation is a good deal more mundane than that.

Certainly at the time these provisions were made, and to this day it is still very largely true, in the great majority of cases, the husband was the breadwinner and, on his death, his widow could be left penniless, whereas the number of cases in which a widower would be left penniless on the death of his wife would be much more rare. I would think that was the reason for it. Whether one agrees with it or not, it seems to me to be the most obvious and likely explanation.

I have been endeavouring to check since Senator Robinson spoke but the information available to me at the moment is that the case referred to by Senator Robinson is still sub judice. I would be prepared, if that difficulty could be got out of the way——

Mrs. Robinson

That is not a difficulty at all. It does not stop the Minister from going ahead and ensuring that pension schemes are not discriminatory.

Mr. Colley

Let me come to that. First of all, I would not be prepared to take any action which would appear to be pre-empting a decision on this case. Secondly, even if that were out of the way, I should like to examine the matter further to be satisfied that this does constitute discrimination— perhaps it does, but I should like to examine it a little further. I should say in this context that, some years ago, when I was in office before, I made certain changes which had the effect— and, indeed, Senator Robinson may say this was discriminatory too—of ensuring that where the widow of a former Member of either House of the Oireachtas herself became a Member of either House she did not forfeit her entitlement to her widow's pension because she herself became entitled to a pension in her own right. The point raised by Senator Robinson is, of course, a different one. If the House will bear with me for a moment, I have just got a note about this.

I understand this case to which Senator Robinson referred went to the the Labour Court, that the court upheld the equal pay officer's ruling, but added that a legal issue was involved as to whether the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act applied to pensions, and the matter is being considered further in that context.

Mrs. Robinson

It is my information that the company are not appealing but that is informal information.

Mr. Colley

That may be so.

Mrs. Robinson

That is irrelevant. I would argue that the basic point of discrimination here——

Mr. Colley

If one accepts that it is discrimination, I would accept that is true. All I can say is that I will consider the matter further in this context. Unlike the point raised by Senator Markey, I think, in this regard, this is relevant to the Bill because, as Senator Robinson pointed out, we are dealing here with the question of pensions, both of Ministers of State and former Parliamentary Secretaries.

Mrs. Robinson

Is the Minister saying that the Minister of State who is a woman will be discriminated against in this legislation in her pension rights, in that she will not acquire a pension right for her widower in the way a male Minister of State would acquire a pension right for his widow?

Mr. Colley

That would be my understanding in so far as, to the best of my knowledge, there is only provision for payment of a pension to the widow of a former office holder, not to the widower of a former office holder.

Mrs. Robinson

Would the Minister be prepared to bring in an amendment on Committee Stage to remedy this situation?

Mr. Colley

Having considered the matter, if it seemed necessary, I would be prepared to bring in a measure to amend this Bill but I would not be in a position to do so before I would hope to have the Committee Stage of this Bill passed.

Mrs. Robinson

I appreciate this is a Money Bill and we can make recommendations only, but to bring in yet a new discrimination in this area is very regrettable.

Mr. Colley

I am sure Senator Robinson would appreciate that there would probably be very many people around the country who would not agree with her that this is discrimination. There are people who would agree, but there are many people who do not agree with her.

Ruairí Brugha

Surely, if it is discrimination, it is discrimination against men.

Mr. Colley

That is the Senator's point I think.

Mrs. Robinson

I am saying it is, of course, discriminatory against the widower, but also against the representative of the people who happens to be a woman.

Mr. Colley

If I may put words into Senator Robinson's mouth, I think she would suggest that, if it is not discrimination against men, it is discrimination against women in so far as the woman would not have the comfort and consolation of knowing provision was being made for her husband if she died before him. All I can say is that I will examine this and, if it seems to me that this should be done, I undertake to bring forward a measure to amend the Bill before the House.

Senator Markey referred to another matter. He talked about an anomaly of people, say, being a few days short of eight years' service and, thereby, not qualifying for a pension as a Member of either House of the Oireachtas. Again I must point out that is not dealt with in this Bill, but I am sure the Senator is aware that, wherever you draw the line, there will be what could be called anomalies, and people will not qualify. I accept that if you make the provision that a person must serve for the equivalent of two successive terms that could get over some difficulties but it would not get over them all. If you think of somebody who is elected in a by-election, what do you do about him or her? It is not quite as straightforward as it looks.

Ruairí Brugha

You could have a very short term.

Mr. Colley

You could. It has been known. I cannot undertake, I must say, that the matter will be dealt with. It will be considered, but I am not giving any undertaking that I will bring in any measures to deal with it. As far as I know, I have dealt with the various points raised, not perhaps to the satisfaction of everybody concerned, but as well as I can in the present circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.