Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 Jul 1972

Vol. 262 No. 8

Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Bill, 1972: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Pensions in respect of ministerial and parliamentary offices were initiated by the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act, 1938, which was largely based on the recommendations of a committee of inquiry into ministerial and other salaries in 1937. While the committee accepted that the offices of Minister and Ceann Comhairle should be pensionable they considered that a gratuity only should be payable to former Parliamentary Secretaries and that no provision should be made for the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. The Government accepted the committee's recommendations, except that they decided to make the office of Parliamentary Secretary pensionable.

It is clear, however, that there was support for equating the benefits for Parliamentary Secretary and Leas-Cheann Comhairle, as it was only after considerable discussion that the committee decided that the latter would not qualify for a gratuity. Furthermore, the committee found that the duties devolving on the Leas-Cheann Comhairle were onerous and for all practical purposes demanded his whole-time attention, if the essential requirements of the office were to be fulfilled. This remains true today and warrants making the office pensionable, especially when account is taken of the widespread extension of pensionability to employments in recent years.

The Bill, therefore, makes the office of Leas-Cheann Comhairle pensionable on the same basis as applies to the office of Parliamentary Secretary. It also covers any past holders of the office still alive, or their widows, and pensions will be payable as from a date not earlier than the passing of the Act.

I commend the Bill to the House.

This is a reasonable proposal. As the Minister remarked, the matter was considered many years ago by the committee which inquired into it and a strong view was expressed in the minutes of the committee that this office should be pensionable. Finally a slightly different arrangement was recommended and this was not proceeded with. Experience has shown that the occupant of the position of Leas-Cheann Comhairle spends almost the same time in the Chair as the Ceann Comhairle, with very minor variations. For that reason there is a good deal to be said for treating the two positions on a similar basis.

I want to refer to one other aspect of the Bill. When this measure was originally introduced it provided pensions for the first time for Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries as well as for the Ceann Comhairle. Experience has shown since that the minimum qualification period laid down can operate unfairly in a number of ways. The minimum period is three years and it operates unfairly in that certain holders of offices, if they are engaged in business or a professional or any other activity which claims their personal attention and requires their personal presence at all times, have been obliged to cease that activity on attaining office. That was the practice.

Other persons filling ministerial positions and operating a different type of business, or possibly owning a farm, can have that undertaking continued while ceasing to operate it directly themselves. Therefore, the question of reducing the minimum period should be considered so that people who are obliged to give up a professional or business undertaking would be in the same position as other office holders who can have extra service added in order to qualify for a minimum pension. I mention this for consideration. It is not in the Bill but it is a matter that might be considered in future. This Bill meets our approval.

The position of Ceann Comhairle or Leas-Cheann Comhairle of this House or, indeed, Speaker or Deputy Speaker of any democratic Parliament, is a very high office indeed. We have been lucky in that down through the years the persons who held either office were men of the highest integrity. Therefore we have pleasure in supporting the proposals put before the House by the Minister.

There are one or two questions I should like to ask. The Minister says this is retrospective. In what way will it affect the position of a Ceann Comhairle who has held office as Leas-Cheann Comhairle while the office was not pensionable? Will that be covered? Secondly, when the position of Leas-Cheann Comhairle is being equated to a certain extent with that of Ceann Comhairle for pension purposes, is there any reason why the holder of this office should not be supplied with transport like Parliamentary Secretaries, Ministers and the Ceann Comhairle? The Labour Party welcome the decision to make this office pensionable.

In reply to the question by Deputy Tully, retrospection does not arise here in the sense that no right to pension can accrue until after the Bill is passed. It does arise in the sense that service as a Leas-Cheann Comhairle in the past would count as to half its value for the purpose of assessing eligibility for pension as Ceann Comhairle. The same principle operates in regard to a Parliamentary Secretary if he becomes Minister.

It is hardly equitable but I get the point.

I do not think the other question asked by Deputy Tully arises directly on this Bill, the question of the provision of transport. I do not want to broaden the scope of the discussion.

I should like to hear the Minister's comments. There must be some reason for it.

There are a number of reasons. The Deputy may be aware that in recent times a decision was taken to provide the Leas-Cheann Comhairle with official transport when the Ceann Comhairle is ill and he is acting as Ceann Comhairle. There is that change in the position.

Fortunately or unfortunately, he is in very good health. It does not happen often.

Beyond that I am not prepared to go at this stage.

It seems very petty.

In regard to the point raised by Deputy Cosgrave, again I think he admitted that it was not directly relevant on this but it is relevant, of course, under the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act, 1938. This point has been raised before and, having gone into it, I have been obliged to reject the suggestion made by Deputy Cosgrave. As he is aware, I have recently undertaken, at his request, to have another look at it. I am in the process of doing that. All I can say about it at the moment is that I see enormous difficulties involved in it if only from the point of view of deciding, once one departs from the existing procedure, where one draws the line. Subject to that, I am examining this matter again and I have not completed my examination of it.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Barr
Roinn