The Committee reported progress on Wednesday last on amendment No. 5 which was tabled to section 11. Since then, a number of new and substitute amendments have been received. It was not found possible in the time available to have a new green sheet of amendments prepared and, accordingly, all the remaining amendments to be considered by the Committee have been circulated on a stencilled and numbered sheet. This sheet replaces all previous sheets of amendments issued in connection with the Bill. As amendment No. 6 is intended to replace amendment No. 5, perhaps the Minister would withdraw amendment No. 5 and move amendment No. 6.
Private Business. - Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Bill, 1973: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.
SECTION 11 (Resumed).
Amendment No. 5, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, after subsection (f), between lines 33 and 34 to insert the following paragraph:
"(g) an annual sum payable pursuant to either section 9A or section 10 of this Act".
I understand that it has been suggested that amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 13 might be taken together as they are related.
Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 to be discussed together.
Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 13. Deputy Colley has amendment No. 10 down. Perhaps he is not pressing it.
I have not withdrawn it. I want to see what happens.
I know Deputy Colley's form. We will watch developments. Amendment No. 6 will enable the Government, whenever they so think fit, to increase the allowances for secretarial expenses, et cetera, to Leaders of the Government and Opposition parties by order. This provision corresponds to that already in the Bill providing for increases, by order of the Government, in the allowances for Deputies and Senators and in the salaries of Ministers and Parliamentary office-holders. As the House will recall, I have given a clear indication of the Government's intention whenever there would be a national wage agreement pattern to develop along the lines agreed under such a national wage agreement.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 13 enable an allowance under section 9A or section 10 of the Principal Act to be paid to the Leader or Leaders, as the case may be, of a party or parties, one or more members of which is a member of the Government. Under section 9 of the Principal Act, as amended by section 12 of the 1960 Act, a Government party were excluded from payment of any such allowance. As pointed out in the course of the Second Reading debate by more than one speaker, the need for secretarial service arises in the case of Government backbenchers just as much as it does in the case of Opposition members. This amendment is designed to enable a contribution—and it is only a contribution—to be made towards the cost of such services and facilities.
Amendment No. 8 provides for the introduction of an allowance arrangement for the benefit of Government parties and amendment No. 9 provides for an increase in the rates of allowance payable to Leaders of the Opposition.
The conditions that will apply to the grant of an allowance to a Government party are the same as those that apply to an Opposition party—each must have a minimum of seven members elected to Dáil Éireann at the most recent general election to qualify for an allowance.
The rates of allowance which are to apply in the case of a Government party are, however, being fixed at only 40 per cent in each case of the rates that apply in the case of an Opposition party. The disparity in these rates derives from the fact that the allowances for the Leaders of the Opposition parties consist of two components, a contribution towards secretarial expenses and a contribution towards research facilities. This arrangement follows the precedent set at the time of the 1968 Act, when a provision for research facilities was made for the first time.
No similar provision for research facilities is seen to be required for the Government parties which can, of course, rely upon the Civil Service advisers to the Government to provide the necessary backing in research. The provisions of this section have emerged as a result of the consultations that have taken place since the House adjourned discussion of the Committee Stage on Wednesday last. The allowance that will be paid under these provisions to the Leader of the present Opposition party will be £25,000, a generous increase of 66? per cent. The Taoiseach and Tánaiste as Leaders of the Government parties will be paid respectively £7,000 and £3,000.
In regard to amendment No. 6, the Minister explained that it is designed to enable the Government, by order, to increase the allowance either to the Opposition or to the Government parties in line with similar provisions in other parts of the Bill. We certainly agree with this approach. However, he also said that this would enable the Government, in the event of a national agreement, to adjust the various allowances and salaries involved in this Bill. The question I want to put to him is this. If there is no national agreement, how does he then visualise the situation being dealt with?
With regard to amendments Nos. 8 and 9 the Minister referred to consultation between the Government and the Opposition. I am not sure that he used the right word. To the best of my knowledge, information was conveyed from the Government to the Opposition. I do not think "consultation" is the right word to describe what took place.
In general in regard to these amendments, it will be seen that the principle which we sought very hard to maintain is being maintained, that is, that the allowance to the Opposition is being dealt with as a separate item from any question of secretarial allowances for the Government parties. This is as it should be. We regret that it took so long to establish to the satisfaction of the Government that this is what should be done but, even if it is belated, we welcome the fact that the Government now accept that we were right in trying to maintain this principle.
With regard to the proposed allowances to the Government parties, as we said all along, we certainly have no objection in principle to them. We think there is a case for the provision of assistance to enable Government backbenchers to get secretarial assistance. I regard the provision here as a stock measure, satisfactory as far as it goes but by no means satisfactory from any long term point of view. I say that because it became quite apparent to everyone in relation to the previous amendment which the Government put forward, where they endeavoured to deal with this problem, that there were various things coming to light which had not been covered and it will be noted that in these amendments one of the objections which had been raised to the previous amendment is not being dealt with and that is the question of independent Deputies in the House. That is only one of the reasons why I would regard this as a stop-gap arrangement. I believe this whole question of the provision of secretarial assistance to Deputies on all sides of the House is one that needs to be examined thoroughly and with more time than is available at present.
I do not wish to delay the proceedings of the House at this stage by going into some of the problems that arise and even if I did I am quite sure there would be other problems that I would not have adverted to that would arise if this whole question of the provision of secretarial assistance for Deputies on all sides of the House were gone into in a calmer atmosphere with more time available. It does seem to me that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges is the right forum in which to examine this problem and I would certainly urge that this should be done as soon as possible and that all facets of the problem be gone into and that the necessary legislation and/or regulations would then be introduced after that consultation had taken place.
I would urge also that we should regard the provisions outlined in these amendments for allowances to the Government parties as merely an ad hoc arrangement pending the outcome of such consultations. We have maintained from the beginning of the discussion on this Bill that that was the right approach. We are still convinced that it is the right approach and we accept these amendments on the basis that they are merely an ad hoc arrangement and that further thought and consultation will be given to this whole serious problem. We do think it is a serious problem and it is becoming more serious for reasons which were detailed at some length in the course of the debate earlier, the much greater degree of responsibility and complexity of matters with which Deputies on all sides are now required to deal than was the case in years gone by.
For that reason as far as we are concerned we agree with the amendments proposed by the Minister with the qualifications which I have outlined. I trust that the Minister will be able to assure us that he takes the same view of the matter and that the kinds of consultation that I have suggested will take place at an early date.
I want to reiterate what Deputy Colley has said and in particular to say that I welcome the considerable change of heart shown by the Government in this matter since this Bill was discussed before. As Deputy Colley has said, the principle which underlines the amendments now put before the House by the Government is very close at least to the principle which we put forward and had to put forward at some length on the previous occasions when this Bill was discussed here. We are glad to welcome the acceptance of those principles and I am particularly glad to see that the form of payment and the way in which it is expressed in this latest set of amendments are more or less in line with the provisions of each of the five previous Acts from 1938 to 1968.
I am particularly happy to see the end of that very longwinded and illfated amendment which in turn was subsequently amended 37 times. We, as an Opposition, were subjected to criticism because we were so strongly opposed to certain provisions in this Bill. What has happened today in the amendments that have been put forward has more than justified our opposition to it. We were opposed to the principle of it and we got the principle changed. We were opposed also to the details of the lengthy amendment which was incorrectly drafted and that has been completely taken out. We have been shown to have been justified in what we did oppose and I am glad to welcome the situation as it now exists.
I would hope that when the Opposition come back from the recess they will be able to think a little more clearly than apparently they have been able to think over the past fortnight. I do not want to inject anything acrimonious but I cannot accept that the alterations which have now been made to meet the objections of the Opposition amount to a change of principle on the Government's part. They do not. From the very beginning of this debate we have emphasised that the allowance made to the Opposition party contains two components, one in respect of secretarial expenses and the other in respect of research. The Opposition, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, said that that is not so, that the payment was made in respect of research. In order to put the matter beyond any doubt, and to save our successors in this House having to suffer the kind of vilification we were subjected to, we have written into this Bill in section 9 a provision that in respect of expenses paid to the Opposition expenses incurred will include expenses incurred in respect of research. I know it was a matter of some surprise to people to hear that the 1933 Shanley Committee, on which the 1938 legislation was based, spoke about secretarial expenses and that is what has been paid all down the years and to that, for the first time in 1968, was added research facilities. There has been no change.
It is not in the legislation.
No, the legislation of 1938 did not include the word "research" but it did say allowance for expenses and the Shanley Committee upon which this legislation was based referred to secretarial expenses. I hope now that this is all water under the bridge. This matter has been clarified and we are ensuring that there will be no further argument by putting the necessary description in this legislation.
I do not know that it is a good thing that we have left it in the anachronistic form that was used in 1938 and since then. The form we were proposing is a form which is in operation in most of the European Parliaments and one which I believe can be justified because it relates more closely to the numerical strength of parties in the present system but I suppose it is a bit late in the day to be arguing all these points. The only effective change between the Bill as it was and as it is now is that the Opposition allowance has been increased by a further £4,000, making a total increase for the Opposition of £10,000 in their allowance compared with what the Opposition was earning before now and on the Government side of the House the increase is only £2,500. That is the net effect of the consultations which have taken place. Whether they are called consultations or communications I will leave it to Deputy Colley to argue over. The fact is that views have been exchanged and a reasonable compromise has been reached. I hope the Opposition will enjoy their holidays now that they have got so much additional money.
I have no wish to revert to the kind of situation we had two days ago but I would point out that there are four amendments under discussion at the moment, two of which are minor in the sense that they change only certain words but two of which are major in the sense that they import two whole new sections into the Bill.
The significant point is that not one line relative to these four amendments was in the Bill which was ordered to be printed on the 17th July and neither were they in it when it passed the Second Stage. These four amendments have been inserted since then and are the result of points raised by Deputies on this side of the House and, in fairness, points raised also by certain backbenchers on the other side. This must be one of the most amended Bills to go through this House for some time. It is wrong to suggest that the Bill is not radically different now from what it was when it was introduced. If the Government had put into the Bill certain sections that are now in in it, and which it should have contained from the beginning many of the problems that we have had in regard to it during the past week or two would have been avoided.
Deputy Colley said a few minutes ago that the Bill was satisfactory as far as it went but that it should go a good deal further and he thought the proper forum for discussion of these matters was the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. That is what we said on the Second Stage. We said then that these matters which have caused so much acrimony and a great deal of debate, which at times was very heated, would not have occurred if the matter had been discussed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges or if some proposals that have come from that Committee during the past number of years had been dealt with more expeditiously.
I do not wish to re-open all that but Deputy O'Malley is making the point that we made at the beginning and which Deputy Colley made today. I have given an undertaking to discuss these matters and to be extremely generous in handling them. I would hope that we would have research and secretarial facilities in this House that would be comparable to the requirements of our Parliament, which are much greater now than they were in 1938. We have not provided facilities to match the requirements of today.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 have been discussed already. Amendment No. 10 falls if amendment No. 9 is carried.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, before section 12, to insert the following section:
Section 9 of the Principal Act, as amended by section 12 of the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Act, 1960, is hereby amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1):
(1A) In this Part of this Act "Government Party" means a Party in Dáil Éireann one or more members of which is or are for the time being the Taoiseach or any other member of the Government.
Amendment agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 4, before section 12, to insert the following section:
The Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion of the following section after section 9:
9A (1) Where there is one qualified party which is a Government Party and not more, there shall be paid to the Leader of that Party an annual sum by way of allowance for expenses of £10,000.
(2) Where there are two qualified Parties both of which are Government Parties and not more—
(a) there shall be paid to the Leader of that one of those qualified Parties which is of the greater numerical strength in Dáil Éireann an annual sum by way of allowance for expenses of £7,000, and
(b) there shall be paid to the Leader of the other such qualified Party an annual sum by way of allowance for expenses of £3,000.
(3) Where there are three or more qualified Parties all of which are Government parties—
(a) there shall be paid to the Leader of that one of those qualified parties which is of the greatest numerical strength in Dáil Éireann an annual sum by way of allowance for expenses of £5,000,
(b) there shall be paid to each of the leaders of the other such qualified parties an annual sum by way of allowance for expenses of £5,000 divided by the number of the other such qualified parties.
(4) An allowance payable to a person under this section shall be in addition to the allowances payable to him under the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Act, 1938, and shall not be payable save in respect of a period in respect of which the last-mentioned allowance is payable to him.
Amendment agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 4, before section 12, to insert the following section:
The following subsections are hereby substituted for subsections (1) to (3) of section 10 of the Principal Act as amended by section 9 of the Act of 1968:
(1) Where there is one qualified party which is not a Government party and not more, there shall be paid to the leader of that party an annual sum by way of allowance for expenses of £25,000.
(2) Where there are two qualified parties neither of which is a Government party and not more—
(a) there shall be paid to the leader of that one of those qualified parties which is of the greater numerical strength in Dáil Éireann an annual sum by way of allowance for expenses of £17,500, and
(b) there shall be paid to the leader of the other such qualified party an annual sum by way of allowance for expenses of £7,500.
(3) Where there are three or more qualified parties none of which is a Government party—
(a) there shall be paid to the leader of that one of those qualified parties which is of the greatest numerical strength in Dáil Éireann an annual sum by way of allowance for expenses of £12,500,
(b) there shall be paid to each of the leaders of the other such qualified parties an annual sum by way of allowance for expenses of £12,500 divided by the number of the other qualified parties.
(3A) in this section "expenses" includes expenses incurred in respect of research.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
There was an opening debate on that one.
It was the amendment that was the best drafted of the lot and if the Minister had read it closely he would have realised that.
It would cost £5,000 less to adopt ours.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 4, to delete lines 48 and 49, and in page 5 to delete lines 1 to 11 and to substitute:
(5) Where a person held the office of Attorney General during a particular period, including a period which commenced before the coming into force of this subsection, and at any time in that period engaged in private practice as a barrister or held any position or other office of emolument, other than membership of the Oireachtas, for the purposes of this Part of this Act he shall not be regarded as having held a qualifying office during the period.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 may be discussed together.
In the course of the Second Reading debate on this Bill some Deputies referred to the fact that section 12 applied as and from 14th March, 1973, only and they suggested that if some previous occupants of the position of Attorney General satisfied the conditions laid down for a pension they should be covered by the section. In replying to that debate I indicated that if there was somebody in this category the matter could be looked at again. Later, in speaking on the Money Resolution, Deputy O'Malley suggested that there might be four or five such persons or their widows.
I have looked into the position and I find some evidence to indicate that a few former holders of the office of Attorney General may not have engaged in private practice while holding that office although the matter is not certain. Whether they had any other position of emolument during their period of office is not clear at this stage. This will require some further investigation. However, on the assumption that some of them may fulfil the condition laid down in section 12, I have decided to apply it to former holders of the office with effect from the passing of this Bill.
I might add that if it appears in relation to any such people that a gratuity was paid to any Attorney General in question on the termination of his services, in accordance with well-established procedure relating to public pensions, it would be necessary to have the gratuity repaid before the pension could be paid—
That is fair enough.
——because it would be obviously inequitable that a person could receive both a gratuity and a pension.
The purpose of these amendments is to provide that the new pension arrangements for the Attorney General will apply, subject to the terms of the legislation, to former holders of the office or to their widows. Thus, all references to the 14th March, 1973, which appeared in the original section have been deleted.
It is provided also that the new arrangements will apply to, or in respect of, former office holders with effect from the date of the passing of this Bill, that is, no payment of pension will be made for any period prior to that date.
There is some evidence to suggest that five former Attorneys General were not engaging in private practice but we do not know at this stage if any of them held any other office or position of emolument while holding the position of Attorney General. Some of the people in question have since gone to a better place——
The Seanad.
——the ultimate place of sinecure. Others have become members of the Judiciary while others have not been survived by widows. But we are leaving the situation open so that if it can be established that some person was debarred from and did not participate in any outside office which carried an emolument or remuneration, his pension application could be dealt with. It was never intended to exclude anybody who was a fulltime Attorney General and who was not engaged in private practice. The best knowledge we had at the time of the introduction of the Bill that the one person who would have received benefit was a person who was Attorney General in the 1920s, who has never been a judge and who is still hale and hearty. However, the position is now open and no injustice will be caused to anybody provided they can prove their case.
We welcome these amendments. I regret, though, that the Bill has had to be amended to insert these provisions. Surely these should have been in it from the beginning. The only reason why they are being brought forward now is because of the objection raised by us. I have never been able to understand why, when this Bill was being drafted, it was not drafted to include these provisions, because even if it were believed that there was nobody other than the present Attorney General who might benefit as a result of them, there was nothing to be lost by drafting the Bill in this way.
The way they were originally drafted certainly gave the impression that the intention was to confine the benefit to the present Attorney General and, if there were any previous occupant of the position who would have qualified for the same benefit, to exclude him or his widow, as Deputy O'Malley has pointed out. I am not saying that that was the Government's intention but I am saying that the Government left themselves wide open to the interpretation of this draft in that way and that it would have been far better if what is now before us had been in the Bill originally. However, it is better late than never. Again, I think it is an indication and it is a vindication of the attitude which we adopted on this Bill that we now get these sections being introduced in these two amendments which make the Bill a far better and more acceptable Bill from everybody's point of view than it was before.
I am sure the Deputy will acknowledge that it shows how reasonable the Government can be.
It depends on one's point of view. They should have been reasonable the first time.
Having regard to the epithets I had to endure earlier in the week it would be no harm if there were as much generosity on the other side as we have exhibited.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I wonder should the second subsection, that is, the bit at the very end, stand now. I am sorry. It is gone. It is confusing because this is not referred to as a subsection; it is referred to in lines.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 5, after line 17, to insert the following section after section 13:
Part IV of the Principal Act shall apply to any person who held the office of Attorney General at a time prior to the passing of this Act as if the amendments effected by this Act to that Party had been in force at that time, but this section shall not be construed as enabling any payment in relation to a period prior to the passing of this Act to be made to or in respect of such a person on foot of a pension.
This amendment has been discussed already with amendment No. 11.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13.
In page 5, after section 13, to insert the following section:
In section 9 (1) of the Principal Act, as amended by section 12 of the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Act, 1960, "other than the Government Party," is hereby repealed.
This amendment has already been discussed with amendment No. 5 and others.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 13, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I wonder would the Minister explain that.
This amends section 15 of the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act, 1938, which provides for the payment of a gratuity of one half of salary to an Attorney General who has three or more years of service.
It is a technical amendment arising from the fact that, under section 8 of this Bill, two rates of salary—£4,430 per annum to an Attorney General who is a Member of the Oireachtas and £7,213 to an Attorney General who is a Member of neither House of the Oireachtas—will be payable in lieu of the existing single rate. The amendment ensures that the gratuity will be based on the actual salary being paid.
Is that actual, inclusive of Dáil allowance?
It would be the actual because in relation to his Dáil service he may have, or will be gathering, entitlement to pension but it is because of the difficulties we are in, which I explained last night, this multitude of anomalies, that we pay office holders now under two separate disciplines, something which needs to be tidied up, but I would hate to think of what would happen if we attempted to tidy it up in another Bill at this stage.
Not at this stage.
As I recommended at the beginning, these things need to be discussed calmly before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and not across the floor of the House.
I am tired telling you that.
The amendment ensures that a gratuity cannot be paid in respect of service which is pensionable. Only service which is not pensionable, that is, when the Attorney General does not hold a qualifying office, can be reckoned for gratuity.
Is it the position that an Attorney General could find himself with an option to take one or the other?
No. If he is fulltime and a Member of the House he would be pensionable. If he were not a Member of the House he would get the gratuity but he would not get the pension. If an Attorney General were fulltime but not a Member of the House he could gather pension on his service but if he is not fulltime he could only get a gratuity. That would seem to me to be a fair situation. We are not giving both.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I want to say on this Stage, as I have said earlier on the amendments, that it is unfortunate that the Bill as presented to the House did not contain what is now in it by way of amendments passed today. If it had, there is no doubt that there would have been a great deal less difficulty with this measure. I do not wish at this stage to reintroduce the regrettable acrimony which prevailed in the discussion of certain Stages of the Bill. Nevertheless, I must say this much: as far as we are concerned, we found that the Bill as printed and introduced was drafted in the way it was without any provision whatever relating to the allowance for the Opposition and when we knew that every previous such Bill had contained such a provision and when we knew that the Government had been reminded of this we could not escape the conclusion that the omission was not a mistake, that it was deliberate. We protested against this and the Minister then introduced an amendment which, as we know, was ultimately withdrawn and which had certain provisions in relation to the Opposition allowance and in relation to an allowance for Members or parties on the Government side.
It should be clearly understood that it was not intended by the Government when they introduced this Bill either to increase the Opposition allowance or to provide any sum to the Government parties. If that had been intended, presumably it would have been in the Bill in the first place. If confirmation of that is required, the hasty drafting of the amendment brought in to do it reveals all too clearly just how hasty it was and how far absent from the Government's mind it was when introducing this Bill either to provide the increase in the Opposition allowance or to provide any sums for the Government parties.
Therefore, there are a number of lessons to be drawn from this. One of them I would commend to the Members on the other side of the House, that is, that they should realise that but for the attitude adopted by the Opposition on this Bill the allowances being paid to the Government parties would not exist. But, we, as I said earlier, believe firmly that the Opposition allowance is one thing and that it should not be confused with the provision of secretarial services for Deputies on any side of the House.
I do not want to get into an argument with the Minister on this as to what may have happened in the past but it will be noted that in response to an interjection by me the Minister agreed that the legislation which deals with this matter contains nothing to justify the claims he has been making about the segregation in that allowance between secretarial assistance, on the one hand, and research, on the other.
It does. I do not agree. I pointed out that the legislation was based upon the Shanley Report of 1937 which deals with secretarial expenses and that the first time research was mentioned was in 1968. Even though the wording was not the same the allowance was always for secretarial expenses.
My question was—and I thought the Minister's answer was in the affirmative—the legislation did not refer to this.
I think there were difficulties in draftsmanship in 1938 as well as in 1973.
The Minister is welcome to whatever excuse he can find.
He calls it "scrivenery" now.
Anyway the legislation does not justify the claim the Minister made. The significant thing, however, in this regard is that the Bill as introduced did not contain any of these provisions. We regarded this as ominous. We regard the granting of an allowance to the Opposition and the increasing of it to an adequate amount, when salaries and allowances of Deputies and Senators are being increased, to be an essential part of democracy. We think it unfortunate that this Government was the first one which did not observe that practice, the first one which displayed a willingness to try to do down the Opposition in that way.
We do feel that the efforts we have made in connection with this Bill, difficult as they have been—and they have been extremely difficult for us as well as for the Government—have been more than justified by the fact that we now have provisions in the Bill which were not there originally and which we strenuously sought to have inserted. It is unfortunate, too, in our view, that the same success has not attended our efforts to try to have the full Employer/ Labour Conference report implemented in this Bill. As the House knows, we introduced amendments which specifically called for the implementation of that report on the dates and as to the sum recommended therein. Therefore, there can be no doubt that this is what we were looking for, no more and no less. The Minister did not accept this. It is a prerogative of the Government not to accept a report, but we would much prefer—and a great deal of time would have been saved in this House, if the Minister's approach had been to say: "We do not accept that part of the report and this is the reason", and then we could have discussed the real issues, instead of which we spent a great deal of time arguing as to whether or not this Bill did, in fact, implement the report.
The fact that we put down amendments at that time and that they were rejected is, of itself, sufficiently revealing of the fact that the Minister was not prepared to implement the report. We did suggest to the Minister that he could, under the terms of this Bill, go ahead and implement it as it was drafted in relation to Deputies and Senators and, indeed, in relation to the Taoiseach and the Ministers, if, as he claimed at one stage, there was doubt about what the Employer/Labour Conference meant, he would seek clarification from that body and, if it showed that the Bill as drafted was not implementing it, make an order to implement it. However, the Minister rejected that too.
I regret the Government thought fit to approach the matter in this way. I think it was a mistake. Apart from the consequences for the individual Members of both Houses, I sincerely hope that, in the context of the economy, the Government's approach in this matter will not have serious consequences. We should not allow the Bill to pass without again placing on record our disapproval of the Government's approach in regard to the Employer/Labour Conference in so far as it relates to the salaries and allowances of Members and office holders.
I also regret the tone in which much of the debate on this Bill was conducted. If anybody wants to apportion blame in this matter, they ought to read the debate and they ought to look at what was said at a very early stage in the debate, where it was pointed out that there was a danger of this kind of acrimony developing, and that it could be avoided. I regret that it was not avoided.
I can say, therefore, in summary, that while we are not satisfied with this Bill, we are a great deal more satisfied with it than we were when it was introduced and that the progress that has been made, although it does not go the whole way, justifies the stand we made. Let me say this, too, in all sincerity and, I hope, in a spirit of generosity, that, having regard to what did develop in the course of the debate, there is considerable credit due to the Minister and to the Government for the fact that, despite what did develop, they were able to come along with the amendments they have introduced today. I am quite happy to pay that tribute to the Minister and to the Government, although, as I said, I regret the provisions were not in in the first place.
There is one bit of disappointing news I have in reply to this debate, that the blame does not lie on this side of the House but rather on those who engaged in what we call a filibuster and what they call something else. If the delay in the processing of this Bill had not occurred, I would be happy to know that Deputies would be receiving cheques for increased amounts in respect of their very strenuous services throughout the month of July. However, because of the obstacles that were put in our way in trying to render assistance to them, I am afraid they will have to wait until Seanad Éireann gives the matter their consideration and, I trust, approval next week.
There never has been in the history of this House an Opposition so well provided for as the present Opposition. We can understand why they were anxious to ensure they were well paid; they obviously expect to be there for a long time to come. I hope that as they go on their holidays they will realise the enormous sums which they will now have and which were not available to the very inadequately paid Opposition which replaced them in government.
The total amount of remuneration which will be received by Opposition Members and the total amount of emoluments, and we are not talking about the fact that at least one of them is lucky enough to have a State car and two chauffeurs, which was not available to the last Leader of the Opposition, will exceed £300,000.
The Minister should resist the temptation.
(Interruptions.)
I want to put the Members of the Opposition in good humour because they have been in very bad humour for some weeks past.
The Minister is about to quote the comparable figure for the Government.
Order, please.
I hope the Opposition will find it possible, when they receive the cheques for the additional amounts, to re-echo the words of thanks which Deputy Colley spoke in his closing remarks. On behalf of this side of the House we would like to reciprocate them, wish the Opposition well and urge them not to spend all the money in the one shop at the one time. That might only help to generate the spiral of inflation from which we are suffering. Spread it evenly because you will be a long time in Opposition to enjoy it. Happy holidays to you all.
Question put and agreed to.
This Bill is certified a Money Bill in accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution.
The Dáil adjourned at 6.35 p.m. until 3 p.m. on 17th October, 1973.