I welcome the Minister to the House.
Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) (Amendment) Bill, 1993: Second Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Go raibh maith agat as ucht an fáilte, a Chathaoirligh.
This Bill provides for the payment of allowances to chairpersons of certain Oireachtas committees and to the Leader of the House in the Seanad. It also provides for the removal of the statutory provision, applicable only to Members of the Oireachtas who reside within ten miles of Leinster House, which restricts the payment of travelling allowances to such Members to days on which they attend sittings of the relevant House or meetings of House committees.
In relation to chairpersons of Oireachtas committees this Bill will give effect to the recommendations of the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector. This review body recommended payments for chairman of Oireachtas committees because the workload of a chairperson significantly exceeded what would be regarded as the fully extended range of responsibilities and workload of an "ordinary" Member of the Oireachtas. Since the review body reported the new committee system has been introduced in the Oireachtas and it is proposed to apply the recommendations of the review body to the chairpersons of these committees as well. It has been generally accepted that the new committee system is working very well. The role of the chairperson in bringing about this situation and in ensuring it continues is vital. For this reason, paying allowances to these chairpersons on the same general basis that is to apply to the chairpersons of the more traditional committees is considered to be fully justified.
Accordingly, section 2 of the Bill provides that the Government may, by order, provide for the payment of an annual allowance to every non-office holding Member of the Oireachtas who is the holder of the position of chairperson of designated Oireachtas committees. It also provides that the Government may determine the amount of that allowance and that different amounts may be specified in relation to different committees.
Section 3 of the Bill provides that the Government may by order provide for the payment of an allowance to the Leader of the House in the Seanad. Section 4 of the Bill provides for the payment of these allowances by way of addition to salary to those Members who qualify for them. This section also provides that the allowances will not be payable in respect of any period before 12 January 1993, the date on which the present Government was formed. The intention is that the allowance will be payable from whatever date after that date a particular chairperson or Leader of the House was elected to the relevant position.
Section 5 provides that the rates of the allowances may be increased administratively in line with general pay movements in the Civil Service. This is a common provision. Section 6 provides that contributions in respect of superannuation entitlements under the Houses of the Oireachtas Members' pension scheme may be deducted from the allowance.
Section 7 makes provision for the laying of orders under this Bill before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after they are made to comply with the necessity of bringing the arrangements into line with the requirements of the Constitution and of efficient administrative practices.
The provision in section 8 enables the Minister for Finance to amend the existing regulations governing Oireachtas travel allowances to enable Deputies or Senators residing within ten miles of Leinster House to claim daily travel payments for attendance on "non-sitting" days. This will bring them into line in this respect with other Members. Section 9 provides for a short title and collective citation.
A difficulty has come to light in the past few days in relation to the payment of travel claims to certain Deputies. I will be taking the opportunity to remove this anomaly by moving an appropriate amendment on Committee Stage. I commend the Bill to the House.
I welcome the Minister to the House. He has shown himself to be a reforming Chief Whip. Some of the changes in the way business is run in the other House can be attributed to him. I welcome the Bill. It is a short Bill and I will be equally brief.
I wish to ask about the sections which are not now in the Bill — sections 7, 8 and 9 have been removed from the Bill as initiated. I understand why but I would like the Minister to indicate what he intends to do about the problems which arose in regard to the secretaries which led to the delay in the Bill and to the eventual withdrawal of those sections. All Members wish negotiations to be initiated, through the Labour Relations Commission if necessary, so that the staff know where they stand for the future.
There is a great deal of uncertainty among members of the secretarial staff about their future. Some feel that their working conditions have been unilaterally changed without consultation. This is a matter in which the Houses of the Oireachtas should be setting a headline in terms of labour relations, good procedures and good practices. We should ensure that our staff are treated fairly. I urge the Minister resolve this problem as speedily as possible.
Before looking at the Bill proper I wish to draw the Minister's attention to an anomaly which exists in the Seanad. There is a distinct difference in the way the different parties are treated with regard to secretarial assistance. The Government parties seem to have a ratio of two Senators to one secretary; in the Fine Gael group the ratio is three to one. I do not know why there is this disparity or why our group is treated differently to other groups but I would like the Minister to look into it and to rectify it as soon as possible.
The Bill recognises that committees are an increasingly important part of the life of this Parliament. When we look at other parliaments we can see that the best are those with highly developed committee systems. They allow detailed work to be done and consensus to be reached where that is possible, and they allow parties to talk to each other in a civilised and easy way without some of the theatricals which often accompany full scale debates in the Houses. It is now being recognised that committees are increasingly important and that the chairpersons of the committees have a crucial role.
It has been the experience of this House through the 1980s and to the present that a committee will often stand or fall on the ability and commitment of the chairperson. If there is a good chairperson who shows leadership and gives drive to the committee then it will be successful. If the chairperson is lethargic, has no vision and does not put his or her best into the job, the committee will frequently wane and make little impact. This crucial role of the chairperson is recognised by the decision to pay an allowance to the chairperson. It should be a generous allowance commensurate with the responsibilities involved.
In any parliament the crucial elements are the Houses and the members. Over the years the Members of our Parliament have been too slow in seeking the recognition to which their work entitles them and in seeking to have that work rewarded properly. I welcome the decision to pay chairpersons a special allowance and it can be justified in any forum in which it might be challenged.
As a Senator I greatly resent that Members of this House are excluded from three of the four major committees. The Members of this House want to be as fully a part of the legislative process as Members of the other House. We want to play our part in committees, yet, under statute, we are entitled only to membership of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I have raised this issue before and it has to be addressed by Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I signal it as a grievance which we have.
I am delighted that the Leader of the House is to be paid an allowance. It should be substantial because the work the Leader of the House takes on is virtually double that of any other Senator. The Leader of the House, the Whip and others who hold positions in this House are responsible for the smooth functioning of the House and are responsible if things go wrong. It is long overdue that the Leader of the House be paid a special allowance.
The Bill is welcome. It recognises important developments that have taken place and I am happy to support it. I hope the Minister can answer some of the questions I have raised. However, I would point out one anomaly. I welcome the payments to the chairpersons of committees but they are now paid more than the Leas-Chathaoirleach. It is long past time that we had a review of the positions of Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach as they have significantly fallen behind what the status and the responsibilities of those offices requires. It is wrong that the Leas-Chathaoirleach should be paid less than the chairperson of a committee. I welcome the legislation.
I welcome this legislation and commend the Minister for bringing it forward. Anybody who makes an independent assessment of the performance of the Oireachtas since the new committee procedure was adopted and the modernisation and streamlining of procedures here was undertaken will see that there has been a significant improvement in the amount of business done, some of it quite complicated and detailed. The decision to introduce this legislation and to pay allowances to certain chairpersons of Oireachtas committees is timely and welcome and will improve the overall professionalism of this House.
I also support the proposal in section 3 to provide an allowance for the Leader of the House. Regardless of who the Leader of the House may be we have seen the enormous dedication and the volume of work involved in the position. I would like to know why the Government Whip has not been included. The Government Whip does a large volume of work liaising with the Whips of the other parties, in organising the business of the House and liaising with Departments and Ministers endeavouring to organise the business of the House in such a way as to utilise the time available in the most productive manner. This is time consuming and tedious work and I would like to record our appreciation of the work done by the present Whip, Senator Mullooly. The work he is doing is important and should be included in this legislation. I am sure Members on all sides would recognise that the work of the Whip to ensure the smooth working of the House and to ensure the best organised procedures are in place is very important.
There is a provision in this Bill that orders made under it have to be laid before the Houses for a period of 21 sitting days. Why is that length of time needed? If, for example, an order was made now there will not be 21 sitting days until almost next Christmas. I am not certain it is a necessary provision. It is necessary to have a certain time limit on objections or resolutions opposing these orders but that could be six or seven sitting days rather than 21 sitting days. I see no advantage in having that provision in the legislation. Perhaps the Minister would also explain what is meant by section 4 (c).
I wish to raise a point about the secretarial assistance available to previous office holders. I held office for a number of years and I have seen the volume of work that is left when one leaves office and go to backbenches or other benches. There is never any provision made to cater for that extra volume of work in terms of secretarial assistance. This applies even to previous Taoisigh. The secretarial assistance provided to former Taoisigh has been very limited. This assistance should be expanded. Even after leaving office Members have quite a volume of work, as do many office holders who might be actively engaged in the political arena.
Vivion de Valera must not be doing the job.
I see Senator Taylor-Quinn smiling but she has not been in office and has not had the experience of the huge volume of work involved. Given that one is not allowed to claim overnight allowances I have found that, in practice, being an office holder that it was almost——
Better off being on the backbenches?
Financially.
Financially there was not that much difference between being on the backbenches and being an office holder given the demands of time and travel involved. However, that is for another day.
Would the Minister tell us if allowances are taken into account in the calculation of pension? On retirement from office pensions are often affected by other things. When trying to work out the detail of one's entitlements one finds snags which reduce one's entitlements on leaving office. In the calculation of pension for Members when they retire from office, will allowance be made for the additional responsibility they had in dealing with either chairmanships and leaderships in their various offices?
This legislation is welcome and will help to make the Houses more efficient. It will also tend to make a politician more of a full time professional. As someone who has worked full time in politics in a professional capacity for 21 years, that is desirable and to be welcomed.
First, I unashamedly welcome this Bill. There is often a certain degree of discretion, almost shyness, in politicians in accepting any further remuneration. I take the view, a Chathaoirigh, that we are grossly underpaid and under-resourced. I have no hesitation or diffidence whatever in saying this.
The vast majority of politicians work hard and get a raw deal from the media. To adopt one of Fianna Fáil's watch cries, I am sick, sore and tired of reading in the media the fact that Chambers such as this are empty. Where are the Members doing their work? The media know perfectly well where we are. We are in attendance in Leinster House day after day. There is no necessity for us to be in this House. We are provided with monitors and can see what is going on here. The fact that we are not physically present as drones and parasites idly sitting by in this House does not mean we are not working. We are working in our offices and the reporters on the electronic and print media, who consistently make sensationalised attacks upon politicians, know this perfectly well. It is about time they stopped attacking politicians who they well know are doing their job and are working hard. They get a cheap crack at politicians to abuse them when they see this House is not consistently full. If every Member was in their seat for the full length of the sittings of the House, no other work would be done. The same reporters who attack us for not being present would then attack us for not being in our offices. I welcome this small and marginal amelioration of the conditions of politicians, for whom I have a great respect across the party spectrum.
I am also glad the Minister had the good sense to shed a noxious section of the Bill which would have required totally incompetent persons like myself to become the direct personal employers of our secretaries. I understand this would not have been welcomed by our secretaries. It certainly would have not been welcomed by me nor by many of my colleagues. It would not be fair to add this additional and demanding burden on us. It is about time our secretaries were brought on board as fully fledged members of the Civil Service. I really urge the Government to consider taking this step. They work hard in difficult conditions in offices that are quite inadequate. The Cathaoirleach knows my views on this matter because I put a strongly worded motion down about this on the Order Paper last term. They do good work. The least we could do is recognise their status by incorporating them as part of the permanent Civil Service Oireachtas framework. I call on the Minister to consider this with a view towards recommending it to the Government.
My good friend and distinguished colleague, Senator Daly, who has had the privilege of ministerial service, spoke about the need for secretarial assistants in these roles, even when, for example, a Taoiseach retires. I am sure this is true. However, I would not want the Senator to walk away with the idea that the current secretarial assistant situation was perfect. This is by no means the case. Our secretaries are grossly overworked and we are under-resourced in terms of secretarial help. My secretary works hard, willingly and she is extremely efficient. When I say my secretary, I really mean that I only possess one third of this delightful creature,
That is sexism.
It is not sexism. A creature is sex neutral, and Senator Ross ought to know that. I will not give him any further titles.
Would Senator Norris call a man a delightful creature?
Certainly. I frequently have. Could you protect me, a Chathaoirligh, from this badinage from a former public schoolboy? I am unused to this kind of abuse.
You are inviting problems for yourself, Senator.
Perhaps. There is a serious point here that we all recognise. The idea that one secretary can fulfil the secretarial requirements of three full time politicians is a complete absurdity, a nonsense and leads to gross inefficiency. It will continue to do so until the Government sees sense and gets the courage to spend a few more pounds on making us efficient and bringing us up to the proper professional standards.
I know the Minister had the opportunity, because I was with him at the time, to visit the Australian Parliament in Canberra. The Minister saw, as did the rest of us on that delegation, the wonderful facilities they have there. Each member of Parliament, whether a Senator or a member of the Lower House, has at least one secretary. They have the most luxurious accommodation and the most up-to-date facilities in terms of computer terminals. It is just superb. We should not be diffident in requiring that. I am not saying that because I went on some kind of freebie or junket, but because it will make us, as professional politicians, even more so.
Even with this small increase — I hope there will be another one in the pipeline; I understand there is one currently been negotiated as part of the Devlin award scheme — our remuneration will be completely laughable on a professional scale. I cannot think of any surgeon, lawyer or engineer who would regard the kind of remuneration we get with anything other than the contempt it deserves. I can assure the House that if I were charging on a professional basis for the number of hours I spend in here, they would have a massive Bill. It is about time we were properly remunerated and this is but one small move.
It also indicates some degree of justice. I have constantly cavilled at the fact that in an arbitrary and capricious manner, those Members of either House who manage by accident, design or heritage to live 10.1 miles beyond the precincts of this august mansion got an extra mileage payment per day. I have always found that aggravating and a form of discrimination against our capital city and its residents. I do not see any reason why people like myself who are in the building every single day of the week should not get some degree of subsistence. I very much welcome, if I have understood the convoluted grammar of the Minister's speech correctly, the final removal of this anomaly.
On the subject of attendance at the House, I enjoy being here. I try to do a fair amount of work. It would be of great help if this place was more accessible. I find it absolutely idiotic that I cannot get into my office from 9 p.m. on a Friday until 9 a.m. Monday. The weekend is a good time to catch up on a backlog of work. To be locked out like a naughty schoolboy and deprived of access to my office because some busybody thinks I cannot be trusted with the key is a load of fatuous rubbish. I hope that may be cleared up as well.
I welcome the fact that chairpersons of Oireachtas committees are being remunerated. It is appropriate they should. I served on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights and we worked hard. We had a distinguished chairperson in Monica Barnes. She did a great deal of unpaid and valuable work. I am now privileged to be a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. The committee has a very senior politician in the role of chairperson, Deputy Brian Lenihan, a former Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs. To expect a person of that stature to engage in the kind of work he undertakes on the committee without any recognition in financial terms is rather insulting to the dignity of this kind of office.
The Minister has indicated that section 5 of the Bill provides for the rates of allowances to be increased administratively in line with the general pay movements in the Civil Service, which is a good, reasonable and practical exercise.
At the conclusion of the Minister's admirable, short and succinct speech, he refers to a difficulty that has appeared in the past few days regarding the payment of travel claims to certain Dáil Deputies. The Minister has taken the opportunity to remove this anomaly by moving an appropriate amendment on Committee Stage. I am curious as to the nature of these difficulties. I hope they are salacious and that they will cause some entertainment to the House when they are revealed. The Minister is correct in removing them, and I direct his attention to another anomaly which I have unearthed. On occasions when one is invited to address meetings orchestrated, organised or incited by one's parliamentary constituency, it is possible, apparently, to claim the rail fare back to Dublin, but not the fare for the journey out. This is rather strange; perhaps it is another anomaly and, as such, might benefit from the Minister's attention.
The address by Senator Norris is a hard act to follow and he has well covered every section to the Bill. The Bill is interesting in so far as it is much shorter than the Bill originally initiated as it contains four fewer sections. I am pleased that the Minister withdrew a number of the sections from the Bill in the Dáil, especially sections 7 to 10, inclusive, which deal specifically with the position of secretarial assistants in the House.
It was most unfortunate that these sections were included in the Bill. It prompts speculation as to the reasons behind their inclusion and why legislation of that nature was proposed and put before the Lower House. It illustrated at total disregard for the positions of the secretarial assistants in Leinster House. It also illustrated a complete disregard for them as people, and as women. If all of the secretarial assistants were men, would such legislation have been envisaged, let alone drafted in the form of a Bill? It was horrific that it was proposed that the female staff of the House, the secretarial assistants, were to be treated as a bit of baggage, almost like a computer, where they could be moved around by the Member and dealt with and paid by the Member in whatever manner he or she thought fit.
The deletion of these sections only took place following political pressure from various Members of the Oireachtas and strong pressure from the trade union movement. However, it is recognised that under the Constitution the Houses of the Oireachtas are entitled to employ whatever people are necessary in order to make the Oireachtas function and workable, and in this respect what action does the Minister propose to take on this issue? Does he intend to present further legislation before the Houses of the Oireachtas? What plans does he have to replace sections 7 to 10, inclusive, of the original Bill? What is the view of the Minister for Finance and his Department on this issue? Undoubtedly, they feel obliged to introduce some kind of legislation or come to some kind of agreement with the secretarial assistants.
The proper way to proceed with this matter is through the Labour Relations Commission. Negotiations should continue and respect should be shown to the secretarial assistants of the House, who have undertaken great work. Many of them have worked for the House for ten to 14 years and it is unacceptable that it was envisaged that they should be thrown on the sideline by a piece of legislation. The situation is in a state of limbo at present, following the withdrawal of these sections of the Bill, and the House must be advised of the proposed measures to be taken.
The secretarial assistants to the House undertake a number of duties. They provide secretarial assistance, accept phone calls, provide reception facilities, undertake research work, meet many people and deal with many problems. They are not only secretarial assistants, but personal assistants, and their work is wide and varied, a fact which should be fully recognised. They are not regular typists such as those in the Civil Service who undertake a typist's job in a section of a Department. Their role is far wider and should be recognised for what it is with suitable and adequate remuneration.
Hopefully, when the Minister considers the situation he will initiate discussions through the Labour Relations Commission and the matter will be satisfactorily concluded. Hopefully, also, the tenure of office which these women have in the House will be held and respected and that, ultimately, the kind of nervousness that crept into the staff over a number of months will be finally and completely dismissed, because what happened was unacceptable.
I welcome the Bill. It is appropriate that the chairpersons of committees should be remunerated for the additional work they undertake. The effectiveness of these chairpersons will depend on their initiative and commitment to their respective committees. The Leader of the House has a specific job to undertake and acts in the place of the Taoiseach on the Order of Business in the House. It is important therefore that he be properly remunerated and I am pleased that a provision to this effect is included in the Bill.
The office holders of Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach of the Seanad should also be remunerated. They have a specific role and responsibility, roles which both present office holders of the House undertake admirably. The Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach should not be treated any differently to the Ceann Comhairle and Leas-Cheann Comhairle of the Dáil. As a House of the Oireachtas, the House should be given equal status at all levels to the Dáil.
I am pleased that the Bill introduces the daily allowance for people residing in the Dublin area within a ten mile radius of the Oireachtas. Most such Members have offices in the Oireachtas, their secretaries are located in the complex, they are in attendance every day and they should be duly remunerated. However, the position of Members residing outside the ten mile radius depends on their proximity to Dublin. Such Members are allowed to undertake either four journeys a week to and from Dublin, or one and a half journeys a week. Travelling from the west of Ireland, I can undertake one and a half journeys a week. Therefore, if I travel to and from Dublin and back to Dublin, I am supposed to stay in Dublin until the following week, which is ridiculous.
As a Member of the House I object to the arbitrary manner in which these matters are decided. Members have a job to undertake. Situations arise which require travel to and from Dublin once, twice or three times a week. There are situations where Members who are close to Dublin, only 20 to 40 miles away, are only allowed to undertake four journeys a week; yet they may be in the House five days a week.
This matter must be addressed and matters such as this should not be decided in an arbitrary fashion by an official of the Department of Finance. The Minister should ensure that Members of the House are properly treated regarding this issue, because there is too much petty nonsense emanating from the Department in relation to it and, as Senator Norris rightly said, we are too shy and ashamed because we are afraid of what the media will say. The reality is that we are totally underpaid for the amount of work we do. It was not until last year, when we were asked to make a submission on working hours for the Devlin report, that I saw on paper the number of hours per week a Member is engaged in political activity. It is enormous and we are not properly remunerated for that. We will not get the right people into the political party system to represent and govern this country in future unless we treat them and remunerate them properly. Until this is done the country will lose out in the long run. We should stop penny-pinching and apologising to the public in general and the media in particular for what we do. We have a specific and demanding role. It is a seven day week job during which Members of the Oireachtas are on call every hour of the day.
I hope the Minister will come before this House with a far more detailed Bill on Oireachtas allowances in future. I commend him on the Bill he has brought before the House today and I recognise what he is attempting to do but I hope this is just the beginning.
I would like to join with the contributions already made by Senators Norris, Taylor-Quinn, Manning and others. The time for Members of the Dáil and Seanad to be apologetic about rises in their salaries and allowances is now over. It is refreshing to see both sides of the House, including Independent Members, uniting to reject media criticism of this issue. Members of the Oireachtas should state on television and in the newspapers that they deserve a lot more money than they receive now. In the past we have tried to hide the fact that we get salary rises and other benefits to which we are entitled. One of the reasons politicians are held in such low esteem is that we hold ourselves in such low esteem——
That is correct.
——and we are prepared to put up with nonsense from the media about being overpaid. Nobody is prepared to stand up and defend politicians' pay rises and say we are underpaid. If we did that we would be respected for it and we would attract people from different backgrounds, people who would be prepared to give a full-time commitment to politics. I do not know what Senators earn; I think it is about £18,000 a year. In terms of any profession or any job in the business sector — virtually any job with a moderate salary anywhere in the country, including overtime and perks— this is a pittance. If this is all we are prepared to pay those who are sitting in this House we will not necessarily get the calibre of people we want, or we will get people who are dedicated but broke — and nobody wants Members of either House to be broke. I do not know by what formula the relationship between Senators' and TDs' salaries is worked out but perhaps the Minister can tell me. If Deputies earn £30,500 and Senators earn £18,000 I would like to know why since every piece of legislation has to go through this House just as it goes through the Dáil. We have Private Members' business just as the Dáil has. Nearly every Member of this House is involved in as much political activity as an ordinary TD. Maybe a lot of that political activity is a waste of time, and personally I think it is. However, the reason for some of the problems we face is that we are not given the responsibility or respect we deserve by successive Governments. The Dáil and Seanad are rubber stamps for legislation which is prepared and decided on elsewhere. That is not always the case but very few amendments are accepted in this House. An amendment on the Health Bill, moved by Senator Norris, was accepted the other day but that is the exception rather than the rule. Most legislation that comes to this House is passed after discussion but without amendment. That is a great shame as it diminishes our role, and the justification for it, in the eyes of the public.
Many Members of this House and the Lower House are said to have talked their way out of the Oireachtas rather than into it. The least rewarding way politicians can spend their time is by talking in the Houses of the Oireachtas. Because of the vulnerability of every seat in this House, the most rewarding way they can spend their time is in the office doing constituency work.
When the public comes into this House or the Dáil they see empty Chambers — far emptier than this House is at the moment — and this gives rise to cynicism. The reason for the empty Chambers is not that Senators and TDs are lazy but because the pressure being put on them by their colleagues and rivals in the constituencies is so great that they regard appearances in the Oireachtas as a nuisance rather than a duty. Because of the system, they are so busy looking after their own interests and seats that they do not contribute as much to the Houses as they ought. That is a vicious circle because, as a result of that, they have very little self respect, the public has very little respect for them, and it is difficult to justify paying them increased salaries and allowances. In order to pay us far larger salaries the Minister should make us justify them by changing the system so that we do give more attention to legislation. We do not give the required attention to legislation at present, and I am as guilty of that as anybody else. This not an accusation against my colleagues on any particular benches. I do not give sufficient scrutiny to legislation because I am involved in other political activity which the system requires me and everyone else to do in order to survive.
The Minister should look at the overall situation in terms of paying larger salaries which could be justified in terms of time worked. We could then tell our constituents that they are getting value for money for the work done in both the Dáil and the Seanad. At the moment it is difficult to persuade the public of that because the system requires Senators and TDs to do constituency work rather than parliamentary work. That is a serious problem which no Government has had the courage to tackle and it presents a difficulty in justifying increases in salaries and allowances.
Section 5 provides that the rates of allowances may be increased administratively in line with general pay movements in the Civil Service. It goes on to justify this, as all Ministers always do, by saying that it is a common provision. The fact that it is a common provision does not make it a good provision. We frequently ask Ministers questions and they reply that such a procedure has always been the case and has served the test of time.
It is not necessarily fair to equate the allowances or salaries of TDs and Senators with the Civil Service. The job of civil servant is completely different from that of a TD or Senator. Civil servants are paid handsomely at the higher end of the scale and they also have great benefits which Members of the Oireachtas do not have. The public should realise the insecurity of every Member of this and the other House. Every Member of this House puts his or her job on the line every one to four years. We do not even know when that will happen, and this should be recognised. The public, if they feel a particular person does not justify his job or salary, can remove that person from his job without compensation in certain cases. There is no security of tenure and that person will be outside this House looking for another job the next day.
There is no appeal.
That is correct. There is no appeal. That is peculiar to politicians and to link them to civil servants is to take one down a false road of thinking because there is no comparison between the two roles in society. Our jobs are insecure while civil servants jobs are totally secure and should be paid accordingly. We should be paid for achievement by setting the goals higher and allowing us to achieve those goals.
It is important that every Member of this House should echo the words of Senator Manning, which were repeated by most of my colleagues. The attempt to change the position of the secretaries was extremely unfair and thoughtless. It was inexplicable how the Government proposed initially to leave the secretaries in this House in an even more vulnerable situation than they are at present. Even now, our secretaries do not have any real security. They are in an anomalous situation within the Civil Service in that they are vulnerable to us losing our seats. There is a problem with the Department of Finance on this issue but the Government proposed to leave them in a far more vulnerable situation by making them indirectly employed by the Members. That was obviously unsatisfactory for the Members and the secretaries.
I understand that Members could have paid them a pittance and pocketed the rest of the allowance. Perhaps I am wrong but I understood that was the initial proposal. If that was not so the Minister can correct me. However, it could have left people who had no qualifications and who would be bad employers and bad wage payers, in a position where they could have exploited their secretaries. I welcome the fact that this provision has been removed from the Bill but it still leaves the secretaries in this House in an anomalous and vulnerable position. The Minister is aware of this because the Government tried to tackle the problem. I ask the Minister to tell the House what he proposes to do about this and what proposals he intends to bring before the House in the autumn.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Senator Ross regarding the respect, status and commitment of past Ministers and the present Minister to this assembly. At various times, we send people from this Parliament to other countries to advise on and oversee the setting up of democracy. We put ourselves forward as experts on democracy yet, in our democracy we run away and hide from it.
I ask the Minister to justify why one secretary must work for three Senators. Our secretaries are upright, honest, hardworking people but the Minister cannot justify the situation because it is unfair to expect one person to do that amount of work. Carrying out work for Senators involves a huge amount of concentration, particularly if the Senators are from different parts of the country. The Minister knows that most Senators work on behalf of their constituents. If they do not carry out that function people will ask why we are here. In order to do that job, Senators are entitled to same facilities as TDs, with one secretary for each Senator. That is the way it should be.
In addition, secretaries were put through the dreadful experience of not knowing if they would have a job or who would employ them. What a laugh, especially when it comes from this Government which has heaped upon itself advisers, spin doctors, programme managers, etc. A humble Senator is not allowed to have his or her own secretary and each day the secretary would not know if she would have employment in the morning. It is a disgrace.
I hope the Minister will explain his actions to the House. He should defend democracy and give respect to those people who are involved in it. This is the only way democracy will survive. If we do not have respect for ourselves, who will have respect for us? It is time the situation of three Senators to one secretary ended and that a definite employment procedure for secretaries was drawn up.
I welcome the fact that chairmen of Oireachtas joint committees are to receive monetary recognition for their work. I was a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies during the last Administration and I am now a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights. These committees put in a great deal of work and much work is required from the chairmen. They are away from their constituency duties and it is important that this is recognised.
It is also important that the Leader of the Seanad receives recognition for his work. I pay tribute to the present Leader who has the interest of this House at heart. While he does not always do what we ask and give us the debates we seek, and to which at times we feel we are entitled, he is making a fair effort to reflect our views in the correct places. He is genuine when he says he wants to introduce the debates that are sought and I wish him well. I hope he will have further success.
In common with Senator Belton, I am also concerned about the level of service Senators obtain. Our secretarial service is under much pressure and it is unfair that the secretaries are put in that position. Many Senators work as hard, and sometimes harder, than Deputies but we have one secretary to three Senators and this puts them under much pressure. At present, in some of the groups, many of the Senators are looking towards the next general election and they have a workload which is as heavy as any Deputy. This puts a substantial amount of pressure on the secretaries and creates frustration for the Senators.
It is not unfair to ask that we be treated equally with our Dáil colleagues in that respect. We are Members of the Oireachtas and are told that we have equal status with TDs in the Constitution. We have the same workload as TDs and it is not unfair to ask that we get equal treatment in relation to services, particularly secretarial ones. I also wish to deal with the extreme difficulties and pressure the secretaries experienced as a result of the approach taken by the Government to change their conditions of employment. I have been involved in industrial relations for over 20 years and I have never seen any approach to changing conditions of employment like this one, which involved using the Oireachtas to pass legislation to unilaterally change the conditions and security of employment of secretaries. Security is very important to people today because of the level of unemployment. To do this through legislation was preposterous.
In all my days in industrial relations and in all the strikes we have experienced, I have never seen an issue like this which was tackled with such lack of feeling and without the manners to consult people. In industrial relations the first thing that is done when one wants to change conditions of employment is to talk to people to explain why this must be done and to get their agreement. None of this was done. The changes were introduced by legislation. This was the first the secretaries heard about it. They were left in limbo. They did not know what was going to happen and whether they would still have their jobs after the next election. Their security would have been threatened even if Members resigned from this House. This was the worst case of the handling of an industrial relations issue which I have ever experienced. Anybody in the area of industrial relations would have to agree with this. I am happy that some Labour Members of the other House saw fit to stop this. The Members who did so have industrial relations experience. They saw how unfair this was and I compliment them on calling the Government to heel on this issue.
However, we are still in limbo and do not know how the problem will be solved. Insecurity still exists to a certain extent among the secretarial staff. Any good manager would try to remove this insecurity because it is a demotivating factor for people. It must be demotivating if people do not know how their security might be affected by future changes. Security in employment has become more and more important because of the level of unemployment and the difficulties in obtaining employment. The proposal to make secretaries appendages to Senators and Deputies was totally unfair, bearing in mind that almost half of the Members of the previous Seanad were not elected to this one. If the Government's original proposals were in operation, half of the Seanad secretaries would not have had jobs after the election. Some of our secretaries have been here for ten, 15 or 20 years. To change the security of such people in the fashion it was done was totally out of order and against any decent principles of industrial relations which I have ever experienced.
I welcome certain sections of the Bill. I particularly welcome that the obnoxious sections 7, 8 and 9 have been removed from the original Bill. The Minister should look at the level of work Senators do. We want to give the same service as TDs. Most of us have a broader electorate and constituency. We have the constituencies in our localities and must also represent the national constituency of the public representatives of Ireland. We do this as best we can and need as much assistance as we can get. I am glad that some recognition has been given to the Leader because this increases the status of the House. It is fair to say that the work of Senators and this Seanad has improved the view the public have of our role. I hope this will continue. We on this side will work as well as we can and we hope the Minister will look favourably at giving Members any help he can, especially in the area of secretarial assistance.
I had not intended to speak on the Bill but it may be the only opportunity I get to explain the difference between the secretarial assistance given to Members of the Lower and Upper Houses. Many of my colleagues who have served in both Houses find it difficult to contend with this difference. I am as busy as a Member of this House as I was when I was in the Dáil. The secretary I had as a Member of the Dáil is now dealing with three Senators. She is overloaded with work every day and does not get any break. If we are to try to upgrade the attitude to politicians, they should at least be given the facilities to do a proper job. Unfortunately, we are not given such facilities. All politicians should have the courage of their convictions and provide money for systems which would result in the better running of the Dáil and the Seanad and better facilities for TDs and Senators.
I welcome the lavish plan the Minister has put forward for vast improvements in both Houses, which is a courageous step. I would have no difficulty in defending the making available of extra funding to Senators to provide adequate secretarial facilities because we do not have them at present. The secretaries working for Senators are under extreme pressure and I would be most grateful if the Minister would give favourable consideration to that sincere request from all of us. If we cannot convince the Minister that we need extra facilities, as politicians we are in difficulty. We are all trying to do a difficult job and I would greatly appreciate if he would give our complaints a fair a hearing and do something about the secretarial situation.
I thank the Senators who contributed to the debate. It strayed into areas other than those which are dealt with in the Bill, but I will try to refer to them. Most Senators have referred to sections which are not now part of the Bill. These are the original sections 7,8 and 9. I respectfully say that most of the Senators who spoke appeared to speak from a position of ignorance or lack of knowledge of the circumstances in which the Government found and still finds itself. After the last general election a former secretarial assistant took a court case against the Oireachtas to establish that she was a civil servant and that because the overall number of seats in the Houses had not changed, she was entitled to continued employment in the Houses. The case was not brought by the Government but by a former secretarial assistant who felt aggrieved at being made redundant when her Deputy lost his seat. The case went to court and the court found against the secretarial assistant. It made the judgment that this secretarial assistant was employed either by the politician concerned or by the party of that particular politician and not by the Houses of the Oireachtas.
There is also legal opinion going back some time which expresses the view that the system which we have in relation to secretarial assistants in both Houses is illegal in that it does not comply with Article 15.15 of the Constitution, where any facility made available to Members of either House has to be provided by way of law. The court more or less said that the scheme had no legal basis — although I do not think that it went so far as to say that it was illegal — and that the issue had to be addressed. The original proposals in this Bill were designed to redress that situation and to make it legal for Members of either House to have secretarial assistants.
I am not saying that Members of this or the other House were being in any way malicious in what they said or that they were trying to mislead anybody. However, I think that they are misapprehending the situation. There was no proposal to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of employment of the secretaries. It was made quite clear in discussions which I and the other party Whips had with the union that the Whips, as the people who were dealing with the secretarial assistants for each of the parties on an ongoing basis — we cannot say employers — would have no part in any move which would remove any of the rights, privileges or terms and conditions which secretarial assistants felt that they had.
Each party has its own formal agreement with the unions. It was made clear by each of the Whips, on behalf of each party, that whatever new legal arrangement was put in place would not mean any lessening of their rights. I spoke on a number of occasions to two union officials and assured them of that. I gave them in writing that we would not contemplate any proposal which would, as some Deputies and Senators, remove the secretarial assistants' legal rights under various labour legislation and would have secretaries employed — and the phrase was again used here this evening — at the whim of a Deputy or Senator.
That was never the Government's intention and neither I nor any other Whip would contemplate that. I want to underline that to Members of this House. If anything, the original sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Bill would have enhanced the protection of the secretaries, particularly during election periods.
A number of other points were made in relation to the secretarial assistants which I want to briefly deal with. No Member of this or the other House has security of tenure. We would all like to think that when we come into this House we could be here for whatever length of time we like. Our system means that we have to face the electorate and take the consequences. We may end up not even lucky enough to be promoted to the Seanad but thrown out altogether. People such as secretarial assistants cannot in those circumstances expect to have the same tenure as any other civil servant might have and expect to continue in their job for 20, 30 or 40 years. That is not realistic.
Some Members made the point that they should have Civil Service status. I believe that Members should be able to choose their secretarial assistant, which is not an unreasonable point of view. It would not be possible for Members to exercise that choice if secretaries were given civil servant status. There would be a pool of 166 secretaries for Deputies and 20 for Senators, using the current ratios. A Senator made the point that 20 per cent of the Members of this House lost their seats in the last election and there was more change in the composition of the Dáil than ever before. Can Senators imagine a secretary from the Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael groups being assigned to a Labour or a Green Party Deputy after an election? Such a scenario would cause all sorts of difficulties.
By and large the Civil Service is nonpolitical, especially higher up along the line. In accordance with the rules and fine practice and tradition in this country they are politically neutral, although I know that they have their own political views. If secretaries were civil servants, where would that leave Members at election time? As civil servants they could say that they could not get involved. I concur with all of the points which were made about how hard our secretarial assistants work. When an election comes they feel free to go and work for their Deputy or Senator. There are difficulties in what some Members were proposing in relation to civil servant status for secretaries.
The decision of the court must be faced up to and a system will have to be put in place, which we have tried to do over the last three or four months. We have been with the LRC. The union and the Whips have made submissions. We were moving slowly towards a common view but a number of matters arose which were outside the control of the Whips. We decided then to reintroduce this Bill and remove those sections.
The present position is that, having removed those sections from the Bill, this matter will have to be taken up between the union representing the secretarial assistants and the Department of Finance through the normal industrial procedures and the LRC, who have an understanding of the difficulties on both sides. It will not be easy to resolve this problem. I want to emphasise, as Members were concerned about it, that there was no desire on the Government's part to introduce a unilateral change in the secretarial assistants scheme.
Senator Manning made a point, which was echoed by Senator Belton and others about having three Senators to each secretary. All parties are given the same allowance on the basis of a three to one ratio. The original Bill would have enhanced the position of Senators as the ratio would have been two to one. The position can be re-examined in the future. Each party is treated in the same manner. If Fianna Fáil have a better ratio it is because they divert their staff in a different way. However, the numbers and ratio are the same.
Senator Manning mentioned the membership of committees. If I understood him correctly, he was saying that Senators should become members of the legislative committees.
Not quite. There is a sense of grievance that we are excluded, but I understand the constitutional reasons for it. There is a sense that the Seanad is underutilised as far as committees are concerned.
If the Senator or the Committee on Procedure and Privileges have proposals they would like to discuss with me at any stage, I would be willing to sit down and examine them. I take the point that the Senator is making. It is a valid one which I would be willing to consider.
Senator Daly mentioned secretarial assistants in the context of former Taoisigh. I accept his point about the amount of work former Taoisigh might have, but one is then treating one Member of the Oireachtas on a different basis from others. The Senator also asked about section 4 (c) of the Bill, which states that an allowance will not payable to a Member of the Oireachtas who is the holder of an office referred to in Part II of the 1938 Act, as amended. That simply refers to any committee chaired by an office holder — for example, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, which is chaired by the Ceann Comhairle who is excluded from getting an allowance for that.
I never thought my grammar would cause difficulty for a Joycean scholar like Senator Norris, but there you have it.
He is a sharp boy.
I agree with the point made by several Senators that Members of the Oireachtas generally are overworked and underpaid. I never make any apology for supporting improvements to Leinster House or salaries. I have said privately, as a backbencher and again in my current position, that it is pointless having independent bodies conduct independent reviews of our wages and salaries if we only accept their recommendations in principle and do not implement them. They are either right or wrong. If we set up these independent bodies we should all have the courage to stand by them and justify, as I believe we can, the level of salaries and so on we are getting.
I did a quick calculation earlier. I do not wish to suggest that I work harder than anybody else, but when I divided the number of hours I work into the combined total of my salary and allowance as a Minister of State, I found that I am paid about the same as a carpenter, which is approximately £10 per hour. That is totally wrong and I have no difficulty agreeing with the Senators who said that Members of the Oireachtas should not be slow to put forward their own case.
Some Members mentioned, among others, the Leader of the Opposition in the Seanad. As we are tied to groups like Gleeson and so on, the best approach Members could take is to make the case for themselves, either on an all party basis or through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, during the next review. Senators seem to have got their act together for the last Gleeson report as they were given an 18 per cent increase while Dáil Deputies were allowed only a 3 per cent increase.
I was delighted to hear so much unanimity in the House about being overworked and underpaid and the need for facilities and extra secretarial assistance for Senators. If I could refer to the other House, it is a pity that we do not get the same cross party support when an effort is made to improve facilities. When proposals were put to the other House about improving facilities for Members, the attacks made on the suggestion and on me did little credit to those who made them. We are our own worst enemies at times.
I have dealt with most of Senator Taylor-Quinn's points as she more or less confined herself to the secretarial assistants matter. I take issue with her view that the changes are an attack on female staff. There were a number of male staff involved and it was not an attack, as I have explained.
I agree with Senator Ross about the tension between constituency and parliamentary duties. I am aware of the amount of work most Senators do. Members will readily accept that there are Senators and Deputies who are not as active as others, but getting the right balance between constituency and parliamentary duties is difficult. We are approaching the correct balance in the other House through the committee system. Members have to spend more time looking after their parliamentary duties, which is correct and should be encouraged in both Houses.
I have dealt with most of the major points raised by Senators. If I have forgotten any points, I will deal with them as we go through Committee Stage. I thank Senators for the points they have made and the general welcome for this Bill. I look forward to returning to the Seanad and to discussing the facilities for Members.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.