Might I ask that the amendment in the names of the three Senators be circulated.
Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial, Parliamentary and Judicial Offices (Amendment) Bill, 1983: Committee and Final Stages.
Yes, it is on section 4.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
There is an amendment in the names of Senators Robinson, McGuinness and Bulbulia.
I move amendment No. 1:
To add a new subsection as follows:
"(3) Subsection (6) (a) (i) of the said section 6A is hereby amended by the insertion after the word ‘widows' of the words ‘or widowers'."
Notwithstanding the very detailed explanation the Minister gave when responding to this point, and indeed notwithstanding his own welcome commitment to adjust the pension scheme to ensure that the discrimination is removed, I cannot accept the explanation he has given because the letters that I put on the record of this House and the position, as told to me, contradicts what he said. I cannot believe that I was indeed receiving a letter from the then Minister for the Public Service which was contrary to the legal advice he was getting. That letter would be a lie. I find it very hard to believe that, in a matter on which I have been making representations, the Minister, in May of 1980, was lying to me when he wrote to me and said that it would be necessary to have the legislation amended. If I may recapitulate the situation: as I said earlier, in February of 1980 I sought to raise on the Adjournment the removal of the discrimination by providing that the widowers and children of female Members of the Oireachtas would be covered by the pension scheme. The then Cathaoirleach, Senator Dolan, on the basis of the advice available to him, ruled out the matter because it would require legislation. That was clearly the advice that the Cathaoirleach's office at the time obtained by making an inquiry on it. Some months later, on 16 May 1980, the Minister for Public Service, to whom the Minister present has referred, gave a contrary view to what the Minister said in replying on this point. He stated quite categorically in a letter to me:
The Government have now decided to make provision for the spouses and children of female Members of the Oireachtas. My Department is in touch with the Parliamentary Deaftsman's Office on the question of amending Section 6A (6) (a) (i) of the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Act 1938 and the Oireachtas Scheme itself. Any necessary consequential action will be taken at the earliest suitable opportunity.
This is not only a suitable opportunity, it is an appropriate opportunity. We are already amending that section. It requires the insertion of two words, or one word, if you put a comma in, and put in the word "widower." There simply is an inconsistency between what has been stated publicly to me, following consistent representations on my part that it would require amending legislation, and that when a suitable vehicle came along that that would be done. If it was only a matter of interpretation then it would not have required this indication that it required legislation. It would have been appropriate to deal with it on the Adjournment and the scheme would have been amended by now because the matter would have been one of statutory interpretation. If it had been a matter of statutory interpretation that would have been a good defence for the Department of the Public Service when the action was brought before the Labour Court. It was brought initially before the equality officer and ultimately before the Labour Court, and the Labour Court found, as a matter of law, interpreting the law, that there was discrimination. In response to that, initially the late Deputy Colley, in his capacity as Minister for Finance and the Public Service and subsequently the Minister, Deputy Gene Fitzgerald, stated over and over again that it required amending legislation and that they would use a suitable opportunity to do it.
I appreciate that this measure is much desired by Members on all sides of this House. I appreciate that to move, to have this amendment accepted and insert the provision clearly into the legislation would require the matter of going back briefly to the Dáil — I assume that this could be done at a convenient moment tomorrow without any delay — and then the legislation could be passed. But I have to say that, as I have looked at the provisions at the moment, it is clear to me that the insertion of section 6A(6) in the 1968 Act — referring expressly to the fact that the pension scheme in relation to deceased persons who are Members of the Oireachtas for pensions for their widows and children was intended to cover widowers and children; the pension scheme so states — was interpreted and applied as covering only widows and children, was defended in the Labour Court as covering only women and children. Subsequent to that it was stated that it would require amending legislation.
Section 4 of this Bill, as it stands, does not cover the point. It states that the Minister can amend pension schemes. But he can only do that in conformity with the legislative provisions covering the pension scheme; he cannot go outside that. If he did it would be ultra vires. It just possibly may be the case that you can interpret “widow” in this context to be “widower” notwithstanding the clear position to the contrary in the letters and in the advice that was obviously given to the Cathaoirleach's Office in February, 1980, a good period after the Labour Court determination.
I want to remove the matter from doubt. I do not see why we should be relying on a possible interpretation when we have the opportunity to make it very clear. Again we have an opportunity to set an example. The scheme for Members of the Oireachtas has been found to be discriminatory in a binding legal determination of the Labour Court and I think we should put it right expressly. As a Member potentially affected by this and joined by other Members potentially affected, I would appeal to our colleagues in this House to accept this amendment. The amendment itself inserts into the relevant section 6A the words "or widowers." Therefore, the relevant section would mean that the pension scheme may provide, in relation to the deceased persons who are Members of the Oireachtas, for pensions for their widows or widowers and children. That makes it very clear that you cover the widows and children of male Members and the widowers and children of female Members. At present the children of female Members are excluded by the way in which the scheme operates, as well as their widowers.
Therefore, I would submit that, for so long as the legislation does not expressly cover "widowers", there is a big doubt about whether the Minister can do it by statutory interpretation or construction. Clearly, the Minister, Deputy Gene Fitzgerald, in May 1980 was advised that he would need amending legislation. It looks to me as though amending legislation would be needed. I do accept that a widower could possibly mount a legal case and have a good ground for fighting a legal case. But I do not see why survivors of female Members of this House should have to go into the Labour Court and start a whole legal process to get their rights when these have already been determined and must be, I submit, clarified.
The Minister has had the burden of steering this legislation through both Houses and, if this amendment is accepted by him, he will be required to go back to the Dáil very briefly. I would hope from the response the discussion on this amendment has had in this House that there would be no difficulty about going back briefly to have the amendment made by the Seanad approved by the Dáil. It would take the matter out of any realm of doubt. It is an amendment which was, in effect, promised when there was a suitable vehicle. It was promised on 16 May 1980 by the then Minister for the Public Service, Deputy Gene Fitzgerald, that this precise amendment would be introduced. I ask the Members of the House to support this amendment and just to take that little bit of extra time and trouble to ensure that it is clearly passed.
I endeavoured to clarify this matter during my reply on Second Stage. Not wanting to appear to be in any way contentious about this matter, what it really boils down to is whether Senator Robinson is prepared to accept the situation as I have outlined it, or whether she feels the situation is factually correct on the basis of the information given to her by Deputy Fitzgerald when he was Minister. I have not got first-hand knowledge——
May I interrupt briefly? As I understand it what the Minister said at the earlier stage in response to this point was that immediately after the determination in May 1979 the then Minister for the Public Service had got the advice of the Attorney General that the Interpretation Act would apply. I am saying that the then Minister on 16 May 1980 informed me in a letter that the Government were going to introduce legislation and that they were in touch with the parliamentary draftsman about it. Either the then Minister for the Public Service was lying in that letter and misrepresenting the situation, or else the Minister has incorrectly stated what the advice available to the Minister for the Public Service at that time was. I am left in a dilemma. I do not know. I have not got that advice. There is a clear conflict between what the Minister said and the letter I got from the then Minister.
I doubt, a Chathaoirligh, that you said anything in relation to this matter.
It is late.
The situation is that this advice was obtained in May 1980, not in May 1979. It was earlier in 1980 that the Senator had the case in the Labour Court.
This letter is dated May 1980.
The Senator referred to May 1979 just a moment ago in her question. The correspondence took place in May 1980. I suspect that the matter is not at all as deep or mysterious as the Senator may be fearful about. I would imagine that the correspondence from the Minister for the Public Service of the day to the Senator may have crossed with correspondence from both the Attorney General's office and the parliamentary draftsman's office to the Minister. My reply on Second Stage was that when the Attorney General's office were asked whether an amendment to the legislation would be required they replied: As to the point raised, it would seem to be provided for by the Interpretation Act, 1937, section 11 (b). They went on to quote the extract from that section which says:
Every word importing the masculine gender shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed as if it also imported the feminine gender.
——and said no amendment to 6A (6) (a) (i) appeared to be necessary.
What is the date of that letter?
May 1980. Within the same few days the parliamentary draftsman's office referred to the matter and made the point that because of the use of the words "deceased persons" in section 6A (6) and the application of section 11 — the section I have just referred to of the Interpretation Act, 1937 — it would require the appearance of a contrary intention if the provisions of the section were not to operate. The draftsman's office concurred with the Attorney General's office in the matter at the time.
I have a difficulty in this matter which I hope the House will appreciate. I cannot speak for the then Minister. All I can do is interpret the situation which seems to be that the Minister, having first been given to understand that legislation might be necessary, was subsequently advised that, because of the application of the Interpretation Act, the scheme as it stood was as applicable to widowers as it was to widows. However, I have to disagree with Senator Robinson in what she suggests about section 4 of this Bill and its intention to substitute for subsection (4) of the main Bill. The new subsection (4) says:
The Minister may make a scheme amending or revoking a scheme under this section (including a scheme under this subsection).
As I mentioned in the Dáil on Committee Stage and in my reply to Second Stage, despite the advice given by the Attorney General and the parliamentary draftsman that it is not necessary, to set at ease the mind of anyone who might still be concerned about the matter — although there does not appear to be any reason for concern — it is my intention in the making of any amending scheme following the enactment of this legislation, and the passage of section 4 which will insert the new subsections in section 6A of the principal Act, to use a form of wording somewhat on the lines of or perhaps identical to the amendment as tabled by the Senators. I want the House to feel very sure — I went out of my way to raise this matter myself in the Dáil on Committee Stage — that the legal advice available to me is that there is no necessity at present for that to be done. The Interpretation Act allows for the coverage of widowers of the deceased female Members. However, I want to copperfasten the situation as it were, if copperfastening is necessary, by including in the amended scheme a reference to the matter raised by the Senator.
I would ask the House to accept my bona fides in this matter, and to accept that, if the House is gracious enough to agree to the passage of the legislation including this section, I will then have the power to amend the pensions scheme in the manner which I have outlined.
While I accept the Minister's bona fides in this matter and while I do not want to go over all the points made by Senator Robinson because she has made them ably, and it is a late hour of night, there is one thing that strikes me as extremely strange about this situation. If this legal advice was given to the Minister in May 1980 a few days after he had written to Senator Robinson, why then did he not write again to Senator Robinson saying: "Dear Senator Robinson, It appears that I have made a legal mistake. The Attorney General now tells me that the Interpretation Act applies."? A public announcement should have been made reassuring all female Members of the Oireachtas, both in the Dáil and Seanad, that spouses would receive pensions if they came to an untimely decease. It seems to me very peculiar that nothing was said about it at the time.
Both Senator Robinson and I are lawyers, and I am sure no one knows better than we do that one lawyer may tell you one thing about the Interpretation Act and another lawyer may tell you another. I do not think one can be absolutely certain that the thing is copperfastened by simply saying that the Interpretation Act applies, especially as I suppose one might argue that saying in the Interpretation Act that masculine includes feminine does not necessarily mean that feminine includes masculine, which is what we are arguing here. The main thing that strikes me as strange is that if this advice was received almost immediately after Senator Robinson was written to by the then Minister, why on earth was she not written to again? Why were we all not told at that stage that we could set our minds at rest and that our potential widowers would be looked after?
Perhaps I might clarify that. I hesitate to be so ungracious as to endeavour to deny whatever decision was taken by the Minister of the day. I am really not in a position to suggest to the House why the Minister might or might not have written to Senator Robinson. I understand that my Department at the time did notify the staff in the Houses of the Oireachtas, who are responsible for administering the pensions scheme, of the legal advice which had been given to them by the Attorney General's Office. I do not know whether that information was conveyed to the Deputies, but I have been given to understand that it was conveyed to the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
This becomes curiouser and curiouser.
Later and later.
Perhaps later and later but all the same, with respect to the Minister, this is a very interesting and a very important issue, and one on which we can spend a little more time. Senator McGuinness has made one of the points I was going to make. For the record may I just state quite clearly and categorically that I got no letter or communication informing me in any way that there had been a dramatic change in the legal advice available from the Attorney General's Office to the Department of the Public Service. If there was a communication in the way the Minister said with those operating the pensions scheme, there certainly was no communication with me as a potential beneficiary or a person involved as a member of that scheme. To the best of my knowledge none of the other Members of this House or of the other House was informed of that.
I find that the Minister is coming a little bit of the way to meet the problem. He says that, notwithstanding the advice he has about the Interpretation Act, he intends explicitly to amend the scheme. Why will he not explicitly amend the Act? We have the section before us. We can clarify the situation. The doubt I have about him explicitly amending the scheme is that there is a problem about whether he has the authority to do it. There was, perhaps, a slight misunderstanding about, or he has been misconstruing the point I made on section 4. I accept that he can amend pension schemes under this new section 4 provision, but he can only amend them within the framework of the legal provisions of section 6A. Section 6A expressly refers to widows and children. That was applied for years as being confined to widows and children. No defence relying on the Interpretation Act was raised when the matter was challenged legally. When matters are challenged legally, lawyers get involved. If it had been as clear as that, it would have been raised as a perfectly good defence to the action brought. It was not raised.
I gather the defence was entered on a matter of Government policy at the time rather than legal interpretation. I do not want to pursue this because it may appear as if I am endeavouring to make a party political point. It is not my intention to do that. I understand that the defence may not have been on the basis of legal interpretation, but rather on the basis of the preferred course for budgetary or whatever other reasons on the part of the Government of the time.
I find myself in an embarrassing situation in that I am endeavouring to interpret the decision of the office holder of the time in relation to how he felt he must approach and defend the matter. All I can do is give to the House the last advice available from the Attorney General who is the law officer who provides the advice to the Government, confirmed by the advice from the parliamentary draftsman. It is the last advice available and consequently I would have to regard it as the best advice.
I am loath to get into legal interpretations because I am not competent to do so. I think an injustice has been done to the people who raised the problem initially and who were not consulted afterwards. That is the least we could expect to have been done, particularly when a Civil Service Department with a specific responsibility had been communicated with about this. Would the Minister give to the people who are likely to benefit under this section a copy of what was advised to the people administering this scheme, so that people who are now concerned about their situation and their dependants will have it in writing until such time as the Minister can copperfasten it, based on the advice available to him? That would be a reasonable compromise. If the Minister could give that assurance to the movers of this amendment, we should not have the difficulty we appear to have at this time.
I would be more than happy to do that. I am told I have not a copy of the correspondence addressed to the officer here in the Houses of the Oireachtas who was handling the scheme at the time. I am told that the House may take it as 99 per cent certain that the correspondence is dated 18 May 1980, addressed to the officer here in the Houses of the Oireachtas. I would be more than happy — as I am sure he will be tomorrow — to make a copy of that correspondence available to Members. I cannot say why it may have been decided that that information should not have been conveyed to Members afterwards. It was sent to the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas who administer the scheme. I should like to thank Senator Ferris for his intervention. As I said, my Department did notify the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas regarding the advice — the first as well as the last legal advice given to the Department as soon as they received it.
Notwithstanding that advice, and because I feel that perhaps were action not to be taken, a niggling if not unnecessary doubt might be left in the minds of certain Members, I had intended when the opportunity presented itself through the passage of this legislation, in the amending scheme to include a wording which would refer to the spouse of deceased female Members as well. I suspected that were I not to do so, the legal advice from the Attorney General might still not be acceptable to some of the female Members who might still feel some residual doubt. I wanted to help to allay their fears and set their minds at ease. I thought it might be better and nicer were I to include that in the amending scheme. I still hope to do that.
As I say, I am still staggered by what has been revealed this evening of the machinations in relation to this. I would like to have copies of the correspondence, because it makes a very interesting file. I would like to have a copy of the letter if a letter was sent to the staff side of the Oireachtas scheme.
I repeat what Senator McGuinness has said. It is unacceptable that no attempt was made to draw this to the attention of the members of the scheme or to communicate further with me on the matter which I had been pursuing, if that is the version. Curiously the Minister, as I said, is coming part of the way with this amendment. He wants in the pension scheme to make it very clear and to spell out that it applies to widowers. I simply cannot understand, other than the inconvenience of going back to the Dáil briefly, why he does not make it clear in the legislation, why the legislation on the face of it will remain discriminatory and will be subject to new interpretation, which did not apply in real terms, did not apply in that widowers would not benefit from the scheme and were refused that in the defence which was placed.
The Minister was correct. There were arguments raised in the Labour Court relating to the cost of extending it to the survivors of female Members. Policy arguments were put forward. Apparently this can all now be resolved by a switch in legal interpretation. I would prefer the approach of using this convenient time and mechanism. If I had the support of other Members I would like to put this matter to a vote as the Minister will not accept it. I am really in the hands of the House. It is a late hour, and the Minister has undertaken to amend the scheme. In the circumstances, I suppose we have at least achieved the substantial objective. It has been a very shabby performance. I hope that my sisters both in this House and generally will note the kind of priority that is given to removing discrimination from various aspects of our working lives.
I hope the Senator's latter remarks were not directed towards my actions in this matter. If they were I would feel obliged to rejoin. I do not think they would be appropriate.
The Minister is in a position to clarify in the legislation what he is prepared to clarify in the pension scheme. If he is willing to do that by accepting this amendment, we can all go home happy.
I have been attempting to get in for some time.
I am sorry. I did not see you.
I know that you did not, and it is certainly no reflection on you. At the outset I would say that I accept the bona fides of the Minister and I thank him for his attendance in this House at such a late hour and, indeed, for the very detailed attention he has paid to this amendment. I put my name to this amendment precisely because I felt there was an anomaly, an area of doubt. I feel that I owe it in justice to my family, and to the families of the other female Members of this House, and to the families of females who I hope will be Members of this House and of the Dáil in years to come in even greater numbers, to ensure that there is no anomaly and that there is absolute clarity.
I listened extremely carefully to the arguments put forward by Senator Robinson, Senator McGuinness and the Minister. While I am no lawyer, I still feel there is an area of doubt, an ambiguity. It seems to me that the most straightforward, rational way of allaying fear, apprehension and anxiety is to include this amendment.
This is a matter that transcends party politics. It is a matter of justice and equity. I call on the male and female Members of this House to support this, because it seems to be a simple, straightforward way of clearing up what may be a manifest injustice. I have not found it a happy thought to be contemplating my own demise or the demises of my colleagues. Nevertheless, these are painful facts and truths which must be faced and dealt with. I do not see why there should be a legal wrangle or a legal hassle if I suffer an untimely death, and why my family or the family of any other female Member of this House or the other House should be put to such inconvenience to obtain what are rights. I support this amendment with the greatest of good will towards the Minister who I feel is a person of equity and justice.
On a point of order, there are two possibilities I should like to put before the House. One is that the Minister is right, in which case there is no problem. The other is that Senator Robinson is right in which case, in my opinion, the amendment is out of order, because it is seeking to make a change which may or will impose a charge on the public purse. That applies only if Senator Robinson is right. If the Minister is right, it does not arise. In other words, if we are duplicating the legislation it does not arise, but if we are actually changing the legislation and imposing a charge, this is not a power which this House has. I ask the Chair to rule on whether, in what I consider to be the extremely unlikely circumstance that Senator Robinson is right, the amendment is in order.
I accepted the amendment. I feel I was obliged to accept the amendment because of the Minister's statement.
I am asking for the advice of the Chair rather than a ruling. I asked the question because it is a complicated matter. If Senator Robinson is right, do we have the power to act accordingly? No one is more frustrated about our lack of power than myself. Perfectly innocuous amendments that I put forward on the Finance Bill were ruled out on the most outlandish propositions.
I accepted the amendment and I hold that it is in order. That is the situation. If you want to question my authority you will have to go to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I will discuss with you later the reasons I accepted the amendment. I gave it great consideration. I left the Chair to look at it and discuss it. In my opinion the amendment is in order.
In my opinion it is not necessary.
I am disappointed that Senator Robinson should have seen fit to use the expression "shabby" in relation to my approach to this matter.
I did not, in fact, in relation to the Minister.
I asked if that remark applied to me and said I hoped it did not. The Senator, in her response, seemed to feel that, because of my approach, it should apply at least in part. I want to say to the House that, if I had considered this amendment to be necessary, I would have included it in the legislation brought before the Dáil in the first instance. It would, presumably, have been passed in that House and the Bill in that form would now be before the House.
The simple fact of the matter is that the advice from the Attorney General, who is the law officer of the Government, confirmed by the advice from the parliamentary draftsman's office, which is the agency charged with putting into legal form the intention of the Oireachtas in relation to legislation, is that it is not necessary to change the existing section. The existing section, together with the Interpretation Act, 1937, covers the situation which concerned Senator Robinson and caused her to take the case to which we have referred to the Labour Court.
Perhaps I brought this matter unnecessarily on the House through my reference to it in the other House. I did that because I wanted to assure any people who might have been worried — because of the case which had been taken some years earlier — that the widowers of deceased female Members were already covered under existing legislation. However, I went further and said that it was my intention when section 4 was passed and amended section 6A of the principal Act, to refer specifically in the amending scheme to the spouses of deceased female Members.
Quite frankly, I felt that I would take that step, despite the legal advice that it was not at all necessary, because I suspected that since Senator Robinson had fought this lonely campaign two or three years ago with the equality officer and subsequently in the Labour Court, it might well be that either in her mind, or in the minds of some other Members or their spouses, there might be still a lingering doubt because the wording subsequently had not been changed, although the Labour Court appeared to have ruled in favour of the case which Senator Robinson made. To set at rest — if it were needed to be done — the minds of people who might be affected, either Members or their spouses, I felt that, since I had the power to make an amending scheme after the passage of section 4, I would include appropriate wording.
The House is being invited to accept my repeated assurance that an amendment of this type is not necessary, that the advice of the Attorney General's office, the parliamentary draftsman's office and my own advice, given to the other House, is that the situation to which Senator Robinson refers is already provided for. The widowers of deceased female Members are covered under the existing legislation through the application to it of the Interpretation Act. On this amendment Members are being invited to say whether the word of the Attorney General's office, the parliamentary draftsman's office and my word are correct or whether the case Senator Robinson makes is correct.
On Second Stage I supported Senator Robinson and I still support the principle. After listening very closely to the debate on this section, I have no doubt whatever that the spirit contained in section 4 clearly underlines the equality between widow and widower. The Minister has put it on record that that is his view and his intention. In view of that, I think the House can rest assured that justice will be done whenever the necessity arises in the future.
First, might I respond by clarifying immediately the remark I made earlier? I hope it was not in any way an obscure remark. I referred to the whole shabby history of this matter. If the position is, as it now appears to be, that legal advice was available as of May 1980 to the effect that this scheme would be covered by the Interpretation Act, that is not the way it was being applied and that is not the way the schemes in the public service were being applied. There was a case brought by IFUT before the Labour Court, subsequent to the case I brought, and nobody raised it there. Nevertheless, if this legal advice was available and was not communicated to Members of the Oireachtas and particularly Members who were affected by it, I call that shabby. It was in that context I referred to it. I was not being critical of the Minister. I said the Minister had dealt fully with the issue in reply to Second Stage and had made a welcome clear commitment to spell out in the pension scheme, which he intends to amend, that it will extend to widowers. The issue that is raised, and Senator Bulbulia focussed on this very well and very calmly at the end of a long day and a long debate, is that there is necessarily a doubt — how could there not be from the very history we have identified this evening — about the legislative provisions and now we have the vehicle to clarify that doubt. The Minister is in a sense acknowledging that there is a doubt because he is willing to clarify the scheme. Why are we not prepared to clarify this in the legislation giving him the authority to amend the scheme? Why is he amending the scheme by reference to an interpretation and spelling out the word "widower" but he will not put the word "widower" into the section? Ministers can only implement schemes by delegated legislation under a section within the framework of that section. Why does he feel it necessary to spell it out in the scheme but he is unwilling to accept this amendment to spell it out in the legislation?
The Minister could make redress not for his lack of willingness to remove a discrimination, but for the way in which it has happened over a substantial period since 1979.
As the Minister will recall, I raised this matter at the joint parliamentary meeting of the two parties the day this Bill was published and nobody said that was covered by the Interpretation Act. Indeed, the Taoiseach said that this is a matter which should be covered by this legislation and the Minister of State for Women's Affairs asked me for chapter and verse on it. Nobody said anything about an Interpretation Act. It was felt that this was something that should be amended. Since the Minister referred to the fact that he mentioned this in the other House, I feel I have to refer to the fact that I had raised it, because it was clearly the suitable vehicle to amend the legislation. Fortified by what Senator Bulbulia said, I think this is an amendment we should put and not withdraw.
On a point of clarification, in fairness, the Taoiseach handled the debate in the absence of the Minister and said he was not conversant with all the sections. I have already suggested a possible compromise — a copy of the instructions given to the relevant officer administering these schemes should be made available to the people who would benefit under it and that document in writing should supersede everything else in writing. With that and the Minister's commitment surely there is no need to have a vote on something everybody agrees on. Surely this written document will stand up in any court of law. If the Minister gives an assurance that he will make available a copy of that correspondence which supersedes all other correspondence, that should set Senators' minds at rest in the interim period until such time as the Minister has an opportunity to insert the appropriate words.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
Is the Minister willing to make that correspondence, including the advice of the Attorney General, available?
I am happy to make the correspondence sent to the Houses of the Oireachtas staff available. The Attorney General's advice is advice to the Government. I have in fact quoted verbatim from sections of the advice in the House, but I would like to preserve this idea, purely from the point of view of principle, of not making the Attorney's advice available. This is a rather unusual procedure.
I seem to remember it was made available on another issue lately.
I recall that it may have become available, and that is what provokes my hesitation. I have read into the record the relevant section of the Attorney General's advice. I would be more than happy to make available the correspondence to the Houses of the Oireachtas, which resulted from making available that advice but I suspect there will be an official in the Houses of the Oireachtas who might be prepared to make it available tomorrow.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
Why did the parliamentary draftsman not follow the precedent set in 1972 when dealing with subparagraph 1 (a) (a) when he came to deal with subparagraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (1) (a)? This has resulted in discrimination against two former Members who gave distinguished service to the nation through the Seanad.
As I mentioned on several occasions, the main intention of this Bill was to restore Members to the position they were at pre-June 1981. There were a number of other items which had been touched upon — for instance, in the Devlin Report — and which were "improvements" of a minor nature. One of them was the question of the pensionability or otherwise of the Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach. First, because of the decision of the Government that the pay charges should not be applied retrospectively and that the Members would be at a permanent loss of that retrospection, some principle conveyed through the sections and the other provisions meant that it was felt it would not be appropriate to go back to apply pensionability for service prior to the service of the present and future occupants of the positions of Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach. I appreciate the legitimate point raised by the Senator but while amendments were being made it was felt that the amendments ought be made basically in the context of the present Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
I know it is not usual but I would like sincerely to thank the Minister for the Public Service, Deputy Boland.