Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 18 Jul 1974

Vol. 274 No. 9

Houses of the Oireachtas (Members) Pensions Scheme: Motion.

Minister for the Public Service (Mr. R. Ryan)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann hereby approves of the amendment of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Members) Pension Scheme made under section 6A of the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Act, 1938, by:

(1) the substitution of "Minister for Public Service" for "Minister for Finance" in clauses 2 (2), 3 (1), 3 (5), 4 (2) and 4 (3),

(2) the addition to clause 1 (2) of ‘save as provided in clause 2 (4) below', and the addition to clause 2 of the following sub-clause:

‘(4) (a) Any reference to a financial year in sub-clause (3) of this clause shall, in relation to after the 31st day of December, 1974, be construed and have effect as a reference to a period which is co-extensive with a calendar year.

(b) Where the reference in sub-clause (3) of this clause to each financial year includes, or may be construed as including, a reference to the period from the 1st day of April, 1974, to the 31st day of March, 1975, the reference shall be construed and have effect as a reference to the period from the 1st day of April, 1974, to the 31st day of December, 1974.',

(3) the addition to clause 5 of the following sub-clauses:

‘(14) A pension awarded under this Scheme may be increased as if it were computed by reference to the rate of Parliamentary Allowance payable from time to time to a member of the Dáil or of Seanad Éireann, as the case may be.

(15) An increase in pension under sub-clause (14) of this clause shall apply only where—

(a) the member has completed not less than 12 years' service as a member, or

(b) the member is 55 years of age or over, or

(c) the member is, in the opinion of the Trustees, precluded from earning a livelihood by reason of permanent disability, or

(d) the pension is payable to the widow of a member by virtue of her late husband's membership of either House of the Oireachtas.

(16) Increases in pensions under sub-clause (14) of this clause shall apply with effect from 1st October, 1973, or, where the conditions specified in sub-clause (15) are not fulfilled at the time of cesser of membership of either House of the Oireachtas, the date on which any of these conditions are fulfilled, but any increase arising from changes in the rate of Parliamentary Allowance occurring after 1st October, 1973 shall apply with effect from the date (hereinafter referred to as the specified date) specified for the payment of increases in pensions (awarded under the Superannuation Acts 1834 to 1963) in regulations made under section 29 of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1964, for the year in which such changes occur, if these changes occur on or before the specified date in that year, but where they occur after the specified date in that year increases in pensions under sub-clause (14) of this clause shall apply with effect from such date as the Trustees unanimously decide.',

(4) the substitution for sub-clause (10) of clause 5 of the following:

‘(10) The Trustees may pay to a widow

(a) whose marriage to her husband took place before he ceased to be a member, and

(b) whose husband was

(i) in receipt of a pension under this Scheme, or

(ii) a member after 1 December, 1960, and had not less than 5 years' service as a member

a person until her widowhood ceases not exceeding the greater of

(a) £250, or

(b) one-half of the pension payable to her husband under this Scheme or which would have been payable to him if he had ceased to be a member on the date of his death, or

(c) in case a pension under this Scheme was not payable to her husband on the date of his death, one-half of the pension which would have been payable to him under this Scheme on such date if he had had eight years' such service

together with an addition to such pension of £75 for each child under the appropriate age subject to the total amount so payable not exceeding the greater of

(a) £250, or

(b) the pension payable to her husband under this Scheme or which would have been payable to him if he had ceased to be a member on the date of his death, or

(c) in case a pension under this Scheme was not payable to her husband on the date of his death, the pension which would have been payable to him under this Scheme on such date if he had had eight years' such service.',

(5) the substitution for sub-clause (13) of clause 5 of the following:

‘(13) The Trustees may pay to each orphan whose parent was

(a) in receipt of a pension under this Scheme, or

(b) a member after 1 December, 1960, and had less than 5 years' service as a member

a pension of £150 up to the appropriate age subject to the pensions payable to the orphans of such parent not exceeding the greater of

(a) £250, or

(b) one-half of the pension payable to such parent under this Scheme or which would have been payable to him if he had ceased to be a member on the date of his death, or

(c) in case a pension under this Scheme was not payable to such parent on the date of his death, one-half of the pension which would have been payable to him under this Scheme on such date if he had had eight years' such service

and, where both parents have been members, the parent eligible for, if he had ceased to be a member on the date of his death, or in receipt of, or if he had eight years' service as a member on such date would have been eligible for, the smaller pension shall be disregarded for the purposes of this sub-clause.', and

(6) clauses (4) and (5) of this resolution shall be deemed to have been passed on the 1st day of July, 1974.

The purpose of this motion, which amends the House of the Oireachtas (Members) Pensions Scheme, is two-fold—(1) to provide pensions parity for certain categories of pensioners and (2) to broaden the area of eligibility for widows' pensions. Representations on these matters have been received by me from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and other quarters.

At present pensions are based on the rates of Parliamentary allowances which Members were receiving when their membership ceased and are not subject to revision. I have decided that the pensions payable to persons, who had at least 12 years' service or who are over 55 years of age or who are precluded from earning a livelihood by reason of permanent disability or who are widows of Members, may be increased periodically as if they were calculated by reference to the rates of Parliamentary allowance payable from time to time. The operative date each year for these increases will be the same date as for public service pensioners generally, commencing on 1st October, 1973.

I have also decided to reduce the qualifying period for widows' pensions from eight years to five years. The actual rate of pension for a widow whose husband had not less than five but less than eight years' service as a Member of either House of the Oireachtas will be half the pension calculated as if the husband had had eight years' service subject to a minimum of £250 for the widow. The addition which is made to a widow's pension in respect of each child is being increased from £50 to £75, and an orphan's pension is being increased from £100 to £150. These amendments will take effect from 1st July, 1974.

The motion also provides for technical changes in the Members' Pensions Scheme following on the transfer of responsibility for superannuation matters generally from the Minister for Finance to the Minister for the Public Service and the changeover of the present financial year to coincide with the calendar year.

Mr. O'Malley

On behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party I should like to say that we agree with these proposed changes in the Members' Pension Scheme. As a Member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges I should like to say that the Committee have been making representations to the Minister for Finance for some time on these lines. The Committee would have been happier if some of the changes had gone a bit further than the Minister saw fit to incorporate in this Order. Nevertheless, we welcome the changes for what they are, subject to one or two reservations to which I should like to refer in the course of my remarks.

First of all, I should like it specifically spelled out by the Minister that the existing pension rights of Members are not affected and that the parity proposals are in addition to the existing rights. In other words, a Deputy with eight years' service at the moment, provided he does not come within one of the other various alternative categories, will still be entitled, as of right, to his non-parity pension or his pension based on the salary of a Deputy or Senator at the time of his retirement.

A number of members of our party expressed some reservations about the fact that, in order to achieve parity, it would be necessary for a member to have had 12 years' service, or to have attained a certain age. Perhaps it is no harm to look at the nature of this pension scheme. It is a contributory scheme. Members who come into this House are not given the opportunity to opt out of it. Indeed, in past years I understand that several Members on all sides of the House asked for the opportunity to opt out. The contribution is not insignificant and they felt, for one reason or another, that they were unlikely to qualify for pension and they wanted the opportunity not to be in the scheme. They were refused that. The deduction from their allowances was compulsory. Therefore, any of the contractual rights they built up by virtue of their membership of the House should not in any way be interfered with. I do not think they are, but I want it specifically so stated by the Minister.

Because certain contractual rights were established, some members of this party take the view that, while the position of Deputies is not being in any way disimproved, it is not right in principle to improve the position of some Deputies only and not of others. This concept of two different types of pension, one being a parity pension and one not, in the view of some people seems at least questionable.

I should like an explanation from the Minister as to why it is felt that this distinction should be made. I suspect from my membership of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges that the answer the Minister may give to that is that the fund is basically insolvent and has been kept floating in the past two or three years by subvention from the Exchequer only. That may explain that decision.

It is wrong to judge a pension scheme such as this by the sort of general criteria which would be applicable to, for example, an ordinary public service pension scheme or fund, because the situation is very different. People do not normally enter the House at a very young age, after school, or immediately after university, as they do in the public service generally. They enter it at any time up to as late as 70 years of age. There are current examples of Members of these Houses who have entered for the first time at or very close to 70 years of age. There are other examples of current Members who entered at 21 years of age.

I can see that from the actuarial point of view such a diverse system of entry into membership of the Houses of the Oireachtas must inevitably give rise to problems in valuing the scheme, and so on. Nevertheless, membership of the Oireachtas is a specialised occupation. It is a public duty and the problems and difficulties associated with it are enormous. When we came in again this morning we saw the National Flag over this House once more at half mast for the second time in a week. This brings home to us that the strains and tensions and difficulties of public life, whether one is in Government or in Opposition or anywhere else, are considerable.

The Minister for Finance of the day need not feel any compunction about making special arrangements in relation to the pension fund of Members of the Oireachtas. There are a great many of us on all sides of this and the other House who, in order to be here, have suffered very grievously financially in our own private affairs. The great majority of us could probably fairly claim that we would be considerably better off in financial terms and, perhaps, even in other terms if we had never entered into membership of either House of the Oireachtas.

The fact that so many people are prepared to do that and to spend very often the best years of their lives, in a very literal sense, in the public service at great cost and inconvenience to themselves, is a very good reason why the precise criteria which apply to other pension funds should not apply to this specialised one. The Minister, in my view, should not feel inhibited from applying parity across the board to everyone who qualifies for a pension under this scheme.

The fact that a man may retire, or be retired compulsorily, from this House long before he is 55 years of age should not preclude him from what one has come to look upon now as his right to a parity pension. One could retire here before one was 40 years of age and still have nearly 20 years' service. There are instances where that might well happen. There are people in this House at the moment who entered it at 21 or 22 years of age and who, if they were to retire at 40, would have 18 or 19 years' service. That category will not be denied anything. Members retiring before 40 years of age with ten or 11 years' service, which is substantial service, will be denied what I think they would not unreasonably look upon as their right to parity of pension.

I am particularly glad that widows will be given parity irrespective of the length of service of their husbands. Of course, they were the most vulnerable group of all. I am disappointed, and this party are disappointed, that widows and, indeed, Members of whom there are now very few left who did not qualify for pension, even though in some cases they had 20 or 25 years' service, will not get anything under the Order now being made.

I would urge the Minister for Finance to consider even at this stage an amendment to the Order to bring in a small number of people, indeed they could be described as a rapidly declining number. The people I am referring to are those who had given up membership of this House, or in the case of widows where their husbands had died, before 1959 but who had 20 or 25 years' service in the House. It is not realised by people in the country, and perhaps by some Members in this House, that these people have no pensions even though they have 25 or more years' service here.

Mr. Esmonde

Are there many such cases?

Mr. O'Malley

I cannot say precisely how many there are. I know personally of one rather sad case which I raised at the Committee of Procedure and Privileges. At the same meeting Deputy Desmond raised another even sadder case in relation to the widow of a very long-serving Labour Deputy who has no pension.

Mr. Tully

She is now gone to where pensions are not needed.

Mr. O'Malley

It would have been better if she had had something to keep her. I do not know the precise number of widows of Members of all sides who might be concerned in this but I doubt if there are more than a dozen. At the outside there might be about 20 in that category and it would not cost the Exchequer a great sum of money because the widows' pensions are low in any event. In this Order it is envisaged that many of the pensions will be only £250 per year. If the 12 or 20 people in that category were to get that amount of money it would be something for them and would not cost the Exchequer more than a few thousand pounds per year. Also, it would be a rapidly declining amount.

I should like the Minister to look at two points. First, could parity not be extended to all pensioners as there is only four years between the parity and the ordinary figure? Secondly, I would ask him in the humanitarian interests of a very small number— most of them are widows but there may be a few former Members involved—to pay them pensions of some kind for the few remaining years of their lives.

Nobody would object to this. It is not the fault of the widows that their husbands died before this scheme came into effect. If they cannot be paid contributory pensions arising out of this Order because their husbands did not make contributions, they might be paid some form of ex gratia payment. It should not be done on the basis that they are appealing for it because of their total poverty. It should be paid ex gratia by the Exchequer on the basis that their husbands gave long public service to the country while in the membership of one or other of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Esmonde

I welcome this much-needed relief with regard to pensions of retired Members of the Oireachtas and to the widows and children of Members. Like Deputy O'Malley I am also a member of the Committee of Procedure and Privileges. I am the son of the man who occupied the seat I now have the honour to hold and for many years he campaigned for this relief, to bring a sense of justice into the matter of pensions where Deputies, Senators and their families were concerned.

I support Deputy O'Malley in his welcome for this provision. I agree also with him on the question of the stresses and hardships a Member of this House or the Seanad has to undergo in his daily life. Deputy O'Malley rightly pointed out the stresses and strain of which we have evidence this week. I should also like to underline the fact that the families of Members undergo considerable stress and strain. Home life as it is known before a person is elected to this House or to the Seanad changes radically after election. One's home is not one's own after becoming a public representative. That is one reason I welcome the provision in this Order to provide for the widows and children of deceased Members.

Deputy O'Malley has rightly pointed out that most Members of this House and the Seanad suffer financial loss. There is hardly one of us here who has not suffered financial loss by virtue of being elected a public representative. As time goes on the workload is increasing and that is bound to take its toll on Deputies and Senators. My reading of this Order is that it will not affect existing pension rights but I should like the Minister to confirm that. Deputy O'Malley has already raised this point. My interpretation of the Order is that this is something extra to give parity to those in receipt of pensions already.

There is one frightful misconception in the public mind in relation to the position of Deputies and Senators. I wish to put on the record that the salary or payment made to Members of the Oireachtas is subject to income tax just like any other income.

Mr. Colley

I met an accountant recently who did not know that.

Mr. Esmonde

I come across this every day of my life. It is a kind of joke; the attitude is, "you are all right, you have got it tax-free". We pay every penny's worth of tax like everybody else. Our friends in the press would be doing a service to the public and to us if they underlined that fact.

This Order we are discussing is somewhat of a social welfare nature. It is impossible to cater for everyone but it goes back to those who qualify as from 1960. It could fairly be stated that this measure attempts to cover most cases.

Mr. Colley

Deputy O'Malley has indicated clearly the attitude of this side of the House to this motion. However, there are one or two matters to which I wish to refer. The first one is a small point but I wish to make certain that it is covered. I understand there is, in fact, towards the end of clause 4, in the last paragraph marked (c), a misprint. I should like the Minister to confirm, when he is replying, that the actual Order which we are approving omits the words "one half of".

The fact that this motion proposes to introduce for former Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas and for widows of former Members, subject to certain exceptions, parity, in the sense that pensions in future will be based on what would be the current rate of payment of a Member of the Dáil or the Seanad need not, I suppose, be of any great surprise to anybody, considering that parity of pension has now been applied very widely in the public service and, furthermore, the fact that, with inflation running at the rate it is, fixed pensions nowadays are, of course, meaningless. Indeed this concept is accepted in regard to the public service and also in regard to various categories of people including social welfare classes who are dependent on the State for pensions and other incomes.

It is unfortunate but it is true that at the rate of inflation we are experiencing today fixed incomes or pensions are totally inadequate and unrealistic for those unfortunate enough to be tied to them. Consequently, the fact that, subject to certain qualifications, it is proposed here to introduce parity of pension should not be any great surprise to anybody.

I do, however, wish to underline a point made by Deputy O'Malley in regard to differentiations between categories of Members for the purpose of deciding whether or not parity of pension should apply. I can understand quite well the arguments which the Minister for Finance was faced with and which he accepted in deciding on this differentiation. It is, however, important that it should be understood, as Deputy O'Malley said, that there is a not insignificant contribution by every Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas to the pension fund and it is perhaps unrealistic, for the reasons outlined by Deputy O'Malley, to expect that that fund would be at all times totally solvent, independent of any contribution from the Exchequer, having regard to the very unusual nature of the recruitment, the age of recruitment and so on, to both Houses of the Oireachtas, leading probably to an actuarial nightmare from the point of view of any ordinary pension fund.

The fact that the fund is not always solvent is not a reflection of the fact that the contributions are inadequate. It is rather a reflection of the very peculiar nature of the recruitment to the House of the Oireachtas. The pension contribution is, I believe, quite substantial. Therefore, the Minister should not be unduly swayed, though of course he has to have regard to it, by the argument that to grant parity of pension to all former Members and not to differentiate between one and another would entail a further degree of contribution from the Exchequer. It is an argument that has some force but I do not think it has overwhelming force and like Deputy O'Malley I would tell the Minister that there are a number of people who object in principle to this differentiation and segregation between Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The proposal in clause 3—it is difficult to quote from this but it is a paragraph which begins with the number 16 because it is to be inserted in the regulations under that heading —which provides that parity would be applied on the 1st October, 1973, and thereafter on the date specified for payment of increases in pensions awarded under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1963, in regulations made under section 29 of the pensions (Increase) Act, 1964, seems reasonable because the Minister in his speech seemed to indicate that what all that amounts to is that the 1st October in any year is the date that has been fixed for the application of increases in pensions for the public service generally. On that assumption it seems to me that that clause is satisfactory and reasonable.

I want to urge very strongly on the Minister the case made by Deputy O'Malley and by Deputy Esmonde in regard to former Members. There is a case to be made in regard to people with long service when there was no pension scheme but that is not the case I want to make now. I particularly want to make a case on behalf of the widows of former Members. It may be true to say that since there was no pension scheme in operation there was no contribution from Members but this is not a new situation. In the civil service where there was no contributory pension scheme in relation to widows for many years an ex gratia pension was granted to the widows of civil servants in that position and it seems to me that there is an exact parallel with the situation we are describing here. There can only be a small number of widows involved in this and of necessity that number must be diminishing. There is, I believe, a very strong, indeed overwhelming, case for the grant of ex gratia pensions to the widows of former Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas who did not qualify for pension. If it could be done in the case of the civil service I see no good reason why it should not be done in the case of widows of former Members of the Oireachtas. I repeat that the number involved must, of necessity, be small and must, of necessity, be diminishing. I know of some cases where this could be of very great importance, where some people are in extreme poverty. There may be other cases where this would apply where it is not greatly needed but that would not deter me. It seems to me that having regard to the situation which was applied in the case of civil service widows there is an unanswerable case for at least similar treatment in the case of widows of former Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. I urge very strongly on the Minister that provision should be made for such people. I can see, even if the Minister is disposed to say yes to that, he may have some technical difficulties in dealing with it but I want to assure him, as far as this side of the House is concerned, any steps or any co-operation that is necessary to overcome those technical difficulties would be immediately forthcoming if we can accept the proposition that this should be done now.

Mr. Cunningham

I would like to urge the Minister not to keep strictly to what may be regarded as a civil service scheme or a pension scheme for any of the public services because we must remember that this is a contributory scheme and the rates of contribution are quite substantial, as Deputy O'Malley said. It is not fair, as far as Members of this House are concerned, or widows of Members are concerned, to try to make a scheme exactly the same as a civil service scheme. We should remember, on retirement or death, in the case of a public servant, not alone is there a pension scheme, which is adjusted in accordance with the increases in salaries current in the civil service from time to time, but there is also a very large gratuity payable on retirement or death. This gratuity is not available to Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas nor to widows of such Members.

The arguments put forward by Deputy O'Malley and Deputy Colley in favour of those who will not be on a graduated pension are very cogent. This also refers to their widows. I do not know if Deputy O'Malley is correct when he says that widows will have this additional pension as salaries increase. Perhaps the Minister would clarify that point. My main purpose in speaking is to point out to him that he has room to do what has been suggested from this side of the House and he can provide a slightly better scheme in view of the fact that lump sum gratuities, which in the public service amount to 1½ years salary, are not payable to either Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas or their widows.

Minister for the Public Service (Mr. R. Ryan)

At the outset I want to say I can understand the sympathy which Members of the House have expressed for former Members who may be in financial difficulties and their widows and children. There is natural anxiety to meet these problems by a scheme which would take account of current difficulties and past service of former Members of the Dáil and Seanad. At the same time, we must realise that here we are doling out public money. We are not doling out money which was contributed by Members of the House to the pension fund.

At present the pension fund is insolvent and is dependent on the Exchequer for subvention which at present runs at the rate of £82,000 per annum. In consequence of this Order and the improvement in the pension scheme it will need a greater subvention so directly we are dealing with the taxpayers' money. In relation to the argument that Members contribute to this scheme it is true they do but again account must be taken of the fact that the allowances paid to Members of the Dáil and Seanad specifically take account of the contribution which is made towards the pension fund. If contributions were not paid towards the pension fund allowances to TDs and Senators would be 6 per cent less than they are.

Mr. Colley

That was said to the civil service for years and they never believed it.

Mr. R. Ryan

The Devlin review body said they took account of the fact that six per cent of the allowance had to allocated to the pension fund. If there was to be an increase in the contributions paid by Members to the pension fund no doubt a claim would be made that the allowance would be correspondingly increased by the same amount. That would mean that the taxpayer would have to pay the money. We must, therefore, ensure that any improvement in the scheme is not such as to generate envy, annoyance or frustration on the part of the general body of taxpayers and in particular on the part of any other pensioners who may feel that their particular difficulties have not been as generously treated as the difficulties of the former Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas or their relations.

There has been criticism of the fact that the order proposes to give the concession of parity—this is a concession of parity—only to people who have had at least 12 years' service in the House or are 55 years of age or are physically unable to pursue a livelihood. It is important that Members of the House should realise that the Irish pension scheme is by European standards exceedingly generous. I would like to give Members the actual position which exists in a number of comparable European countries and some of our partners in the EEC.

In Austria the minimum service required for entitlement to pension is ten years and then the pension is not payable until the former member is 55 years of age. In Belgium it is eight years. Again the pension is not payable until a former member is 55 years of age. In Denmark it is eight years but it is not payable until the former member is 67 years of age, subject, however, to a right to have it paid when a former member is 60 years of age if requested, and under 60 subject to a means test. In Germany it is not payable until a member has eight years service and is 55 years of age but if a member has 12 years' service it can be paid at 50 years of age and if he has had 16 years' service it is paid at 55 years of age.

In Italy it is payable after five years when the former member is 60 years of age. That 60 years may be reduced to below 50 years subject to a member having paid at least 20 years' contributions towards the pension scheme. In Norway the member must have service in at least three parliaments and in each of them for a period of at least six months. It is not paid then to a former member until he is 65 years of age and then he must not be fully employed in the State or municipal service. In Luxembourg the period of qualification is five years but the pension is not paid until the member is 65 years of age.

It will be seen that the Irish scheme is particularly generous in that a Member may quit this House, voluntarily, or involuntarily, after eight years' service and receive the pension for the remainder of his life. There are cases of Members of this House who quit the House in their thirties who are now in receipt of a pension to the end of their days.

Mr. Colley

Would the Minister have any idea of how the contributions in the other countries compare with what we are doing in the Irish Parliament?

Mr. R. Ryan

I have not got the specific figures here but most of them, if not all, have a contributory scheme. I think it is correct that we should take into account the age of former Members of the House when we are dealing with public moneys. If a former Member of the House quits the House in his 30s or 40s that person has a reasonable prospect of earning a livelihood elsewhere. The probability is that most Members of the House have other means or access to other means by virtue of their skills, business connections, employment before they become Members and employment which, except for officeholders, continues in most cases while people are Members. So, we are dealing with a class of people who are not comparable with public servants who have not got the opportunity to engage in other employments. They are full-time civil servants and a full-time civil servant has not any other means and by reason of the fact that he is a civil servant he has not got the same contacts to engage in other livelihoods.

The suggestion has been made by a number of people that we should not try to tie the Civil Service scheme to Members of the Dáil and Seanad. Maybe it is as well that we do not because, if we did, the qualifying age would be 60 years and we would not have that very considerable benefit which people can get before they become 60 years of age. In the Army former members have to have at least 21 years' service and in the Garda there is no question of any pension being payable unless a former member is at least 50 years of age.

Mr. O'Malley

Civil servants, guards and soldiers do not fight elections.

Mr. Colley

They also get lump sums.

Mr. R. Ryan

I would hope the Members opposite are not devoid of some sense of joy in fighting elections. Surely they would like the opportunity to consult the people from time to time. There are other compensations.

Mr. O'Malley

I would be glad of the opportunity tomorrow morning. Would the Minister do anything to help us in that?

Mr. R. Ryan

There is no obligation on anybody in either House to stay here, none whatever. There is no obligation to come, no obligation to stay. It is only an ass who becomes a Member of either House for the money that is in it and people do not do that. I will accept that there could be cases where people lose out and I suppose a large number of Members would be better off if they were devoting all their time, skill and talent to the pursuit of profit elsewhere. It must be remembered that we make our choice voluntarily. We can always refuse to stand and in that situation one must not be over-troubled by the anxieties which some people have mentioned.

As a matter of fact, through various contacts which obviously Members of this House have with former Members and their families we have no information at present of distress of the kind that a number of people here illustrated as possibly existing and there is an ex gratia scheme operative and if cases are brought to notice of former Members of the House who do not qualify under the existing pension schemes operating since 1960 onwards, then relief can be given in such cases and the usual practice is that where such cases are identified a committee of the House considers the matter and invariably the necessary assistance is given.

Mr. O'Malley

The Minister said that there is no evidence of any such cases and there is none in his Department. I myself have a case in his Department on behalf of a widow of a former Member for the last three months and I cannot get a decision out of them. The clerk of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges has rung the Department of the Public Service as late as yesterday trying to get them to decide something that has been before them for three months. In the meantime the widow has £6 a week non-contributory old age pension and her husband had 26 years' service in this House.

Mr. R. Ryan

I do not know why Deputy O'Malley did not make that speech earlier, if he had wanted to make it. If he had let me speak I would have referred to the case which he has in mind. That case is being considered at the moment. There are certain procedures which have to be gone through. There are certain consultations which have to take place. These are being done.

Mr. O'Malley

The Minister said a few minutes ago that there is no case.

Mr. R. Ryan

Wait now. I have said that cases described here were not known and they are not known and I was saying when the Deputy interrupted me that where such cases come to light they are attended to. One would think from the remarks passed here that there was a large number of people concerned. There certainly is not. An odd case is thrown up and when it is thrown up it is attended to and I think that is the proper way to do it. I do not think any hard case which occasionally arises would warrant the extention of complete parity of pension to all former Members of the House irrespective of their age and their capacity to earn other livelihoods.

I know of another country—I know this in my personal capacity. I am not quite certain of all the details so I do not want to name the country in question; it is a European country—where they have not a pension scheme of the nature we have here or of the nature that I have described but, instead of a pension, they award a substantial part of the membership allowance to a former Member for a year after the person terminates membership and I think again in the second year after termination of membership a further sum is granted. The principle which guides the approach in that country is that a person should receive some cushioning so that the fall from Parliamen-tary office can be softened as he goes into "civvy street" and that he will be provided with some funds while he adjusts himself to earn his livelihood elsewhere. I have given these cases so that people would see that the Irish scheme is generous and that people would realise that any further improvements in the scheme will have to be borne entirely by the Irish tax-payer and in the light of that we must be careful about the manner in which we extend it. If there are hardship cases the best way of dealing with them is on the basis of the merits of each particular case and not on the basis of widening the scheme to make it so generous that people who are not in need will get funds from the public purse.

Mr. Colley

Could I ask the Minister two questions? First of all, I did mention what I believe was a correction.

Mr. R. Ryan

Yes. I am sorry. I should have dealt with that. The correction has been made.

Mr. Colley

What we are proposing to pass is the corrected version?

Mr. R. Ryan

That is right.

Mr. Colley

The other question is: does the Minister accept that there is a strong case—I am speaking now only of widows of former Members who are not entitled to a pension— that there is a strong case for treating them in the same kind of way as the widows of civil servants who are not entitled to a pension were treated, in other words, on an ex gratia basis? I am only speaking of that category, which must be small in number and getting smaller. Does the Minister accept the case for them?

Mr. R. Ryan

Again, you might have widows of former Members who would be in very comfortable circumstances and I do not think we would be justified——

Mr. O'Malley

They would not be entitled to a pension.

Mr. R. Ryan

I do not think we would be justified in handing over public money to such people.

Mr. Colley

It was done in the case of civil servants.

Mr. R. Ryan

Yes but there you were dealing in the main with people whose husbands were solely and totally involved in their jobs.

Mr. Colley

Some of them were wealthy. There would not be many.

Mr. R. Ryan

Some of them may have skills of their own and may be engaged in projects of their own but I think the way we deal with such cases where hardship is identified and payment is made is the appropriate way rather than handing out money directly from the public purse because our contributions are not sufficient to meet the considerable payments. Might I add that it would appear from the pattern of membership in this House over the last decade or so that there is now a quicker turn-over of membership than in the earlier days of the State. That is my own personal impression; I have not had statistical analysis done. But if that is so we could arrive at a position in which the burden which the State would have to carry would be very much greater than it is at present. Therefore we must be careful about the way in which we dole out public money.

Question put and agreed to.