Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Mar 1998

Vol. 154 No. 17

Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial, Parliamentary, Judicial and Court Offices (Amendment) Bill, 1998: Second Stage.

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

Minister for Finance (Mr. McCreevy)

This Bill is in two main parts. First, it fills gaps in the existing legislation about the entitlements of Members of the Oireachtas. It affords us an opportunity to face up to the ever increasing work in both Houses and to afford recognition to work carried out by those dedicated members of both Houses who perform duties over and above their normal duties as parliamentarians without reward up to now. This incentive to Members is very important if our plans, now being realised, for setting up a new committee system are to work to optimum effect. The Bill also updates and clarifies the statutory basis for travel, secretarial and other facilities for Members and the parliamentary parties in so far as they provide services to Members in pursuit of their parliamentary duties.

Second, the Bill contains the necessary enabling powers to deal appropriately with the pension arrangements of judges and court officers in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Judge McMenamin and to deal with some anomalies in relation to pensions of Ministers and other officeholders.

Since the introduction of allowances for chairpersons of Oireachtas committees in 1994 on the recommendation of the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector, there have been substantial changes in the role, functions and number of Oireachtas committees. There is now a new range of committees whose scope extends to scrutiny of the performance of all Departments. This change is part of the new reforms which are actually happening across the public service both under the SMI and otherwise.

There is now a need to recognise the additional burdens being placed on committee members other than the chairpersons. For this reason the Bill provides for the introduction of new allowances, not alone to the chairpersons but also to those other Members of committees and the Oireachtas who hold other positions of responsibility.

Accordingly, section 4 provides that the Government may, by order, provide for the payment of allowances to the chairpersons and vice-chairpersons of, and whips to, Oireachtas committees. The Bill also provides for the payment of allowances to the chairpersons of sub-committees of Oireachtas committees.

Section 5 provides that the Government may, by order, provide for the allocation of an annual amount to the chairpersons of Oireachtas committees. This allocation is intended to assist the committees to carry out their roles by the payment of allowances to the members of the committee in respect of rapporteur or other services which they may provide to the committee. Only members of committees who do not receive an allowance under sections 3 or 4 may receive such an allowance.

For similar reasons, that is the recognition of additional burdens, the question of allowances for the holders of certain recognised positions in the Dáil and Seanad also arises. Accordingly, section 3 provides that the Government may, by order, provide for the payment of allowances to Members of the Oireachtas who hold certain positions carrying special responsibilities in the Dáil and Seanad. It is proposed that the following positions in the Dáil would attract allowances: the Assistant Government Whip and party whips. The positions in the Seanad, in addition to the Leader of the House, are the Deputy Leader of the House, the Opposition Leaders of the Seanad, and the Government and Opposition Whips in the Seanad.

As Senators will be aware, the allowances currently payable to the chairpersons of various Oireachtas committees, and the Leader of the House in Seanad Éireann, are pensionable on a pro-rata basis under the Houses of the Oireachtas (Members) pension scheme. This is an appropriate arrangement and I intend to continue it. Therefore, the various allowances payable under sections 3, 4 and 5 will be pensionable. The pensionable nature of these allowances means that pension contributions must be deducted and section 10 provides for the making of regulations in that regard. This will be done on the same basis as applies for the Chairperson's allowances at present.

Section 11 provides for a number of technical amendments to clarify what has become present practice in relation to management of facilities for parties in Leinster House. Specifically, it will abolish the requirement that a deduction be made from the party leaders' allowances when the leader is provided with a car at State expense. It will also remove any ambiguity about payment of allowances to Independents and underpin present practice whereby secretarial facilities for qualifying parties are authorised by the Minister for Finance.

Sections 12, 13 and 14 deal with pensions for Ministers, Ministers of State and parliamentary officeholders. These sections are necessarily rather complex since they must deal with the variety of different situations which can arise. However, there are really only two key changes being made.

The first of these changes is that pensions for these groups will in future be calculated on the basis of time served, within the normal maximum and minimum limits, whereas hitherto only completed years have reckoned. This means that a person with four and a half years pensionable service will have a pension based on that service, whereas in the past the pension would be calculated on the basis of only four years. I am happy to be able to propose this change because the ministerial and officeholders pensions are very unusual in being reckoned on the basis of completed years only.

The other main issue dealt with in relation to the pensions of officeholders concerns the situation where a person could, out of a total of five years in qualifying offices, have two years of ministerial service and three years of service as Minister of State. Because he or she did not have enough service to qualify for a ministerial service, such a person would have the same pension as someone who had five years service as a Minister of State and had never served as a Minister. This seems to me to be anomalous and I am of the view that the service as Minister deserves additional recognition in pension terms. This Bill would grant that recognition by calculating the relevant pension on the basis of the weighted average of the salaries of the various offices held by the person concerned. Therefore, where a person has service as a Minister and Minister of State, the salary used for pension calculations will naturally be higher than that used where a person has Minister of State service only.

In section 9, I am proposing a number of amendments to the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Act, 1938, to reflect current practice and to arrange for an alternative procedure for dealing with arrangements for payment of travelling allowances. Other technical amendments to the regulating making powers governing Members' travelling expenses in section 18 will facilitate this.

Some of the existing restrictions on payment of overnight allowances and travelling facilities for Members attending meetings in Leinster House are anomalous in this day and age. Members will be pleased to hear that, in section 15, I am making provision to extend the number of occasions when an overnight allowance may be paid for accommodation costs arising from attendance at Leinster House. Specifically, where Members wish to attend Leinster House for the purpose of using the facilities available in the House on non-sitting days, they will be entitled to claim an overnight allowance for accommodation expenses, subject to a limit of 25 such occasions per year. This will be of benefit to those Members who, heretofore, have been unable to avail of the facilities in Leinster House during recess periods because there was no legislative provision in place to allow for the reimbursement of their accommodation expenses in Dublin. This measure will, l hope, encourage Members to make fuller use of the facilities available in the House, thus further assisting them in the performance of their parliamentary duties.

Members of both Houses have long argued for improvements in the level of secretarial support available under the existing provisions arguing that they incur substantial additional costs of secretarial help outside Leinster House out of their own pockets. In response to this request, section 16 provides for an augmentation of the existing provisions for secretarial facilities by introducing a new allowance for this purpose of £5,000 per annum for Deputies and £3,750 per annum for Senators.

A number of other provisions in Part II of the Bill now before the House are of a minor technical nature and I do not propose to go into them in any great detail.

Part III of the Bill is intended to achieve two objectives following on the Supreme Court decision in the McMenamin case, which related to the superannuation provisions of judges. For serving judges and court officers and future appointees to these offices, the rate of retirement lump sum will be increased from one and one-half times pension to a rate which gives a lump sum of up to one and one-half times pay as is the position for most other groups of public servants. It also provides enabling powers to deal appropriately with claims from judges and court officers who retired before 19 December 1996, the date of the Supreme Court decision in the McMenamin case.

As I have said, the proposals in this Bill are largely of an enabling nature. They will give the Minister for Finance of the day power to determine the facilities to be made available for Members in pursuit of their parliamentary duties and to recognise the contribution being made by Members who are being given new positions of responsibility. They also remove some anomalies in relation to certain pension entitlements of former Ministers and officeholders. I am also availing of the opportunity presented by the Bill to enable the Oireachtas to deal appropriately with pension arrangements for judges and court officers in the wake of the McMenamin judgment.

When the Bill is signed into law, it is my intention to bring forward, at an early date, proposals for the appropriate Government orders and regulations to give effect to the changes now being proposed. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mrs. A. Doyle

I thank the Minister for coming here with this Bill today. We will be supporting its provisions. As speakers in the other House stated when contributing to the debate on this Bill, there can be no argument against giving fair and legitimate allowances and expenses to anyone going about their public service duty in either of these Houses, and we should not even quibble about it. That should not even have to be said but apparently it does. Any Member of this House or the Dáil who is working as one must work today is entitled to proper legitimate expenses plus a proper salary commensurate with the responsibility of the job. The Bill in no way impacts on salaries — that is another day's work. Neither does it negate the need to have a proper salary structure which recognises seniority, responsibility and the commitment which must be given to maintaining a seat in either the Seanad or Dáil today.

I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. I do not intend to deal with its individual provisions because my party will not be opposing them. I welcome the Bill as a step in the right direction towards ensuring that we continue to attract the right type of people to a career in public representation. One of my greatest concerns is that the calibre of person needed to continue the ethos of public service prevalent in the State since its foundation will not be attracted to join any of the political parties or stand as independent candidates. Unless educated people — be they self-employed or PAYE workers — can leave good jobs in the private sector, enter the Houses of the Oireachtas to serve anything between one and ten terms and believe they are placing their houses and the future of their spouses and children at risk by opting for a period of public service in the main part of their lives, we will not attract the people we need.

Taking account of the exigencies of the electoral system, it is estimated that approximately 40 per cent of Deputies lose their seats at elections. I am not sure what percentage of Senators lose their seats.

Mr. Manning

50 per cent.

Mrs. A. Doyle

Therefore, 40 per cent of Deputies and 50 per cent of Senators lose their seats at each election. How will we convince people with education, experience and a contribution to make to leave their careers in the private sector and spend a number of years in either House to ensure the future of our democracy unless they are reasonably rewarded?

Those who criticise the salaries and expenses politicians receive are often in some of the best paid jobs in the State. I am sure Members sing from one hymn sheet on this issue. In the interests of those of us who are committed to a career in the public service and who could earn more money if we put the same time and energy into a private sector role, I will not apologise on behalf of myself or my party for asking to be reasonably paid and not left out of pocket in terms of expenses.

I represent a rural constituency and I have a particular empathy with expenses being rurally based. I also have an empathy with women who wish to serve in the national Parliament, be it the Dáil or Seanad, particularly those with small children, some of whom are present in the Chamber. Most men who opt for public service have someone to take care of the home, if not their wives, it may be their mothers or a partner of some description. The majority of women who opt for public service, particularly those who are married with young children, are obliged to employ two or three people to carry out the work they would do if they remained at home and to supply the round the clock housekeeping and mothers' help service that is needed to replace a mother who comes to Dublin for two to four days per week while Parliament is in session. We must attract more people from rural areas and more women to politics. We cannot make it more difficult to serve in Seanad and Dáil Éireann.

I welcome the provisions in the Bill relating to judges and court officers and the tidying up measures to which the Minister referred. I thank for him for proceeding as he has done. He can rest assured that, in the interests of democracy and ensuring continued commitment from the best, the brightest and those with most to contribute, we will be supporting the Bill.

Mr. Finneran

I welcome the Bill, the provisions of which are overdue to some extent. I applaud the Minister on his involvement in trying to resolve the situation in which public representatives find themselves. On entering public life, a number of Members walked away from attractive careers in other professions. If I had remained in my profession, my basic pay would be £8,000 more per year than it is at present. With regard to allowances, I have run a full-time constituency office from my home since 1989 at my own expense. These things are not generally known by the public.

I compliment the Minister who has addressed a problem which needed to be resolved. This issue should have been tackled many years ago but it was not. I am sure I speak for many Members of both Houses when I say that the Gleeson and Buckley reports did not address the profession of politics and did not take account of the commitment people make to political life. That matter remains to be addressed. A number of the younger members of my family earn £4,000 to £5,000 more per year than I do. In that context, equal treatment has not been accorded to those in political life.

Senators have slipped down the salary league. At one point, before I entered the House, Senators salaries were set at 75 per cent of those of Deputies but that is no longer the case. I am pleased the Minister attempted to address this problem on the basis of the allowance. In the future, 75 per cent of the amount granted to Deputies in respect of office accommodation will be given to Senators. I urge him to keep this in mind when dealing with the salaries of elected people.

People make a voluntary decision to enter public life but that does not mean they should remain paupers. Anyone involved in public life recognises that stresses and strains are placed not only on elected representatives but also on their families because of the irregular hours they are obliged to keep. The Minister has addressed a matter which required resolution. I hope he will not take his eye off the ball in respect of the salaries of public representatives because it is time consideration was given to that issue.

Mr. O'Toole

I welcome the Bill as what I hope will be a phased attempt to improve the position, salaries, allowances and conditions of elected public representatives. When teachers receive a pay increase or farmers obtain additional money, no one applauds. Members of both Houses wonder why they are criticised but no one outside is happy when elected public representatives receive additional money. It was wrong of the newspapers to state that the Government voted itself an increase. It did not do so. The Government merely implemented a conclusion that was reached through a proper process whereby claims were lodged, considered and reviewed.

In 1992, I made representations on behalf of this House to the Gleeson review committee and the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Bertie Ahern, which were precisely in line with the issues dealt with in the Bill. At that time, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges of the Seanad tried hard to encourage movement in this direction but that was not deemed possible. I compliment the Minister for making that move today, which is a move in the right direction.

Public representatives are grossly underpaid. There is a need for a top to bottom assessment of their pay and conditions which should begin with the Taoiseach and the Cabinet. I do not believe the current review body on higher remuneration can do the job adequately. I accept that it hears cases and comes up with responses and results but it is not appropriate to assess the work being done by Members of both Houses.

The process by which we gain increases in salary, as opposed to the provisions in the Bill, should be given careful consideration by the Minister. Once established properly, wages and salaries paid to Members should be linked to national agreements. We should not have to go cap in hand to anyone. We should get the increases automatically like everyone else and at the same time as everyone else in synchronisation with the social partners. That is the easiest way out of it and we should do that in future. It would also allow for reviews which are provided for under the national agreements.

The report of the review body makes specific reference to the relationship between a ministerial salary and a secretary-general's salary. The way in which it is written is quite tongue in cheek. I talked to some of the departmental officials about it. It lacks a logical conclusion when one looks at the range of secretaries-general's salaries and relates them to the Ministers. A relationship needs to be maintained. I do not agree with the proposal that the Taoiseach should be paid merely 25 per cent more than the Minister. The Taoiseach should be paid 25 per cent more than the highest paid secretary-general.

The salaries of Senators and Deputies should be closely connected — a Senator's salary should be 75 per cent that of a Deputy and a Deputy's salary should be linked to a principal officer in the Department of Finance. If that link were established once and for all we would not have a row every year and a series of newspaper headlines — the first when we lodge a claim, the second when it is heard by the review body, the third when the body reports, the fourth when the Government makes a decision and the fifth when the money is paid. People have the impression that we have had a five fold increase. We handle our business badly and we should tie up these loose ends. There should be openness and transparency and we should conduct our claims like any other group of professionals.

I compliment the Minister who, like previous Ministers — Mr. Boland and Mr. Haughey — grasped this nettle, and with some style.

Mr. Costello

The Labour Party supports this Bill. I agree with Senator O'Toole that the present review mechanism for allowances and salaries is unsatisfactory. It is time to put it on a proper footing so that we have a mechanism to reflect the work done. Our claims should be dealt with properly to remove the impression that we receive excessive payments. We should be tied into the national wage agreements so that we are not seen to vote money to ourselves, which is how our arrangements are presented by the media.

The Minister has been generous in his consultations with all parties and that is why there is all-party agreement on the Bill. I am glad the Minister has not forgotten the Seanad because we have been the poor relation in the past when it came to expenses. Many Senators are full-time public representatives — I am among them. When the survey was carried out for the last review over 50 per cent of Senators were in this category; in the past there was a small number of full-time Senators. Full-time Senators earn far less than they might earn if they remained in their original employment. That is so in my case. We should consider the nature of the job, the work done and the remuneration given.

Our allowances and pay are totally accountable, subject as they are to scrutiny. We are at present complying with the requirements of the Ethics in Public Office Act. The media keeps the public well informed of issues regarding politicians' remuneration, although they are not often accurate in their presentation of the information.

I am pleased there is provision for an extra secretarial allowance. Senators have expenses for constituency secretarial and research work which is done outside the existing secretarial allowance and that work has been funded by the individual Senators to date. The contribution now being provided will be most welcome.

We discussed a national minimum wage last night and emphasis was put on the urgency of addressing the plight the low paid in occupations with no minimum wage. I hope we can show the same urgency to ensure that those at the bottom end of the scale get a fair wage for their work. We have complained for many years that we have not been paid appropriately for the amount and quality of work we do as legislators.

We should think in terms of a staff association for the Oireachtas so that we might have a representative structure to deal with pay and conditions. We spend time cribbing about such matters so we should have a representative structure to deal with them satisfactorily.

Minister for Finance (Mr. McCreevy)

I thank Senators for their contributions and their welcome for the Bill. Ministers for Finance are not used to being praised by any group, whether colleagues in Government, the Opposition or any other group. I am grateful for the Members' kind words. I consulted widely on this issue. Over the last ten years or so the scrutiny visited on politicians has been intense — some of it justified, but much of the comment has been ignorant and ill-informed. This has created a mood that we are all on the make, so to speak, which has led to Members feeling that their task was becoming impossible. I agree with Senator Avril Doyle that it will become increasingly difficult to get people to go forward for public office; certainly, they will not go forward for the money.

Whatever one's profession, whether shopkeeper, farmer, factory worker or civil servant, one likes think that others would have respect for it. In recent years politicians have come to be regarded as the dregs of humanity thanks to their portrayal to the public. This has made many feel that the job is no longer worth it. It is necessary for wrongdoing in public life to be sorted out and I do not object to scrutiny. However, the hype associated with some events has led many people to believe that this profession is not as it was.

I discussed this issue over 12 months ago with a politician who retired by choice at the last election. He was not in my party but was a good friend and was respected in the Oireachtas. We had similar views and agreed that we had seen the best days in the Oireachtas. He said he would not like to be starting his political career again and he had been in the House for a long time.

The reason I made that point was that when the Buckley Commission reported, that build up had occurred and the miserly and miserable increase offered to TDs and Senators sent everyone around the bend. I have no difficulty with independent bodies carrying out reviews. However, because we were so thankful to the individual concerned, I availed of the opportunity not long after that at a banquet at which I was the guest speaker to thank him for the increase to TDs. I am sure he applied the same rates of pay to his own organisation.

As Senator O'Toole mentioned, we were blamed on at least five occasions for it. As he said, and as Deputy Rabbitte said yesterday, when TDs and Senators got together on a subcommittee and made the submission which was inadvertently leaked to the newspapers, people perceived we had got that increase and we then got blamed for what we did not get. When the report came out, it led to a considerable amount of angst among Deputies.

I take on board what Senators said about a matter which was not addressed relating to salaries. The next independent review will start on 1 January 1999 and I will make some decisions in advance of that date. There is merit in some of the ideas put forward here. With the exception of the last review, for whatever reason, I was on the subcommittee of each review as far back as Devlin when I was on the subcommittee with Tom Fitzpatrick from Cavan and Paddy Lawlor and Barry Desmond. The Devlin Commission was followed by Gleeson.

Politicians have always resisted being linked to any grade in the Civil Service because they regard their job as unique. That was our traditional thinking on the matter, but I accept what Senator O'Toole said. Perhaps it is now time to move forward and link up with some grade. I remember the principal objection to us being linked to any grade was that we regarded our job as unlike any other. The scales mentioned here and which Senator O'Toole and Senator Costello said about being tied into the social partnership agreement has some merit and will be considered.

As another Senator said, we are not trying to do anything underhand. We are the most accountable organisation in the country. Any Member may ask a question and if the media asks, we can tell them exactly what each Member receives and what the costs will be. We are both accountable and transparent. As I said earlier, I will sign into law orders and regulations in respect of this Bill when it is enacted. I thank Senators for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.