Deputy Geraldine Kennedy is in possession and has 22 minutes left of the time allotted to her.
Private Members' Business. - Oireachtas and Ministerial Pensions Bill, 1987: Second Stage (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Colley on Wednesday, 14 October 1987:
"That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann, conscious of the fact that the whole question of pay and conditions of Oireachtas Members, including pensions now paid to former Office holders, is before the Gleeson Committee, declines to give a second reading to the Bill and, in doing so, invites the Gleeson Committee to consider the option of paying all former Office holders an additional increment for each year of service as an office holder, and paying pensions, which should be on a contributory basis, to Office holders only on their retirement from the Houses of the Oireachtas."
—(Deputy Noonan,Limerick East.)
I am amazed by the attitude of the two main political parties, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, to our proposal to abolish ministerial pensions for serving Members of the Oireachtas. They have washed their hands of the issue. They both agree that the contentious issue of Members of this House receiving a salary and a pension while still serving as TDs should be referred to another committee. They say it is important that they are not seen as the arbiters. Yet both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are prepared to be arbiters of pay, pensions and social welfare entitlements for every other member of the community. That is not good enough. Leadership on this and every other issue should come from this House. We stated in our election manifesto last February under the heading "Leading by Example" that politicians must lead by example if they expect people to accept the tough decisions necessary to make this country great. How apt that paragraph is in the context of the Estimates debate. The Government proudly boast of spending cuts amounting to £485 million.
If I am amazed by the public posturing of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in relation to our Bill I am deeply disappointed by the attitude adopted by the press and media generally to the announcement by the Leader of the Progressive Democrats, Deputy Des O'Malley, and by the chairman of our Parliamentary Party, Deputy Bobby Molloy, that they are giving up £8,840.80 and £7,119.84 respectively. Their decision, which is unprecedented among politicians in this House, did not merit a mention on the main RTE News that night. The debate on this Bill got four paragraphs in today's edition of The Irish Times.
I, more than any other politician in the Dáil, know that TDs frequently turn on the media when they are in trouble. I have a lot of experience of that. I found over the years that TDs of all parties like to make a scapegoat of the press. Most of the time it is not justified. It is with some reluctance, therefore, that I criticise the media coverage of the move by Deputy O'Malley, Deputy Molloy and this party to change ministerial pensions and remove an anomaly which is a great cause of public disillusionment with politics and politicians. The new £40,000 State car bought by the Taoiseach received about the same media coverage and was looked at with the same interest as the decision by two politicians in this party to forego more than one-third of their salaries in order to bring pressure to bear on this House to change the law on ministerial pensions and get support for this Bill.
I was criticised during the last Dáil session for tabling a question asking for details of the expenses paid to Members of Seanad Éireann. It was as if I had offended the cosy club in Leinster House. This party believe that, along with the abolition of ministerial pensions, the Seanad should be closed down. It is of some interest to me that a number of Senators receive more in expenses than in their actual salary. Deputy De Rossa tabled a question to the Minister for Finance on the day we were due to move this Bill last week. We saw from the answer that the only people Fine Gael put forward to oppose our Bill, namely, Deputies Michael Noonan and Jim Mitchell, receive ministerial pensions of £6,256.80 each on top of their Dáil salaries. Why was this not pointed out when these two Deputies spoke to oppose the abolition of their pensions? The other main opponent of our Bill, the Minister for Finance, Deputy MacSharry, is well on the way to storing up a ministerial pension of over £6,000 at this stage.
I know from having been a political journalist that the media have been crying out for years for politicians to lead by example. If Deputy O'Malley and Deputy Molloy had not given up their pensions the media and members of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael would be ready to pounce and say they will not put their money where their mouth is. The exact opposite has happened and it is a rare development in Irish politics. The Progressive Democrats told the electorate in their manifesto last February that politicians must lead by example if they are to expect people to accept the tough decisions which are necessary. We proposed the abolition of ministerial pensions for sitting TDs, members of the European Parliament, members of the Judiciary and the President. This is exactly what we are now doing. We, unlike the Government party, are acting in accordance with our mandate. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael clubbed together to change the rules for Private Members' motions last June when we were ready to introduce this Bill to the House. They stopped it. Now we are belatedly introducing the Bill and Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are still stopping it.
The purpose of the Bill is to end the payment of ministerial and Oireachtas pensions to the holders of certain offices and to sitting Members of the Oireachtas. These pensions are payable under the provisions of the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Acts, 1938 to 1983, and under the provisions of the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Acts, 1938 to 1983. The Bill makes sitting Members of the Oireachtas and of the European Parliament, the President of Ireland, serving members of the Judiciary, both domestic and European, the Attorney General, the Master of the High Court and members of the Commission of the European Communities ineligible to receive pensions while holding such office.
Our Oireachtas and Ministerial Pensions Bill was first published on 2 July last year. Within weeks of its publication and the controversy on ministerial pensions which the Bill created, the President of Ireland, Dr. Patrick Hillery, gave up his ministerial pension. I recognise that the office of President is above politics.
I am sorry to interrupt, Deputy Kennedy, but I have already indicated to a number of Deputies that I should prefer the office of the President or the President himself not to be referred to in this House.
The office of President is specifically mentioned in section 3 of our Bill.
That may be so.
May I not then debate the full details of the Bill?
A fleeting reference, perhaps. I am concerned to uphold the office of President, this being a neutral office.
I think you will find what I am saying is not in any way offending the office, nor would I wish to do so. I recognise that the office of President is above politics. That is as it should be. The office of President has a proud tradition and long may the situation remain. On the one occasion when the office of President was challenged a constitutional crisis arose and the President of the day resigned. This action——
The Deputy is getting into very deep water. I repeat the desire of the Chair that neither praise nor blame be attached to the office of President. I have allowed the Deputy to make a fleeting reference but she seems to be going into some detail now. I should like to dissuade her from going into any detail.
May I ask for a ruling? The President is one of the office holders referred to in section 3 of the Bill.
That may be so.
Then it is unrealistic to seek to exclude any reference to him in the course of the debate.
I have allowed a fleeting reference.
There is no precedent for this.
The Chair will stand over what he is saying.
I do not wish to offend the office of President but his action in voluntarily giving up his ministerial pension after the Progressive Democrats published this Bill last year, the President, Dr. Hillery, has made a major contribution to this debate, I commend him for that as I am sure do the people generally.
This Bill should not be based on the generosity of high-minded people like the President, Dr. Hillery, and Deputies O'Malley and Molloy in giving up their ministerial pensions. It is an attempt to change the law. I appeal to Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Members to show by their vote next Wednesday night that they agree this anomaly should be removed from the law. We are not asking them to give up their pensions. We are asking them to change the system of payment for Members of this House so that political experience is rewarded in the same way as people are normally paid in any other profession in this country. They do not receive pensions as well as salaries. People receive pensions when they retire.
We decided that the abolition of ministerial pensions should be the first ever Private Members' motion of the Progressive Democrats in this House. We are prepared to lead by example. I call on Members of other parties to support us in removing the anomaly of ministerial pensions from the Statute Book.
As one in receipt of the allowance, pension, gratuity, or whatever one cares to call it, it behoves me to speak in this debate and to justify the present arrangement. Because of my position I could be accused of speaking from self-interest. Self-interest is not necessarily something to be ashamed of, particularly when the self-interest is supported by a case that is objectively valid, by arguments that have stood the test of time and which are based on a report which is some 50 years old. I refer of course to the Shanley report of 1937 which is the basis for the present arrangement for paying Ministers in office and when they leave office.
I find it puzzling, to say the least, that the proponents of this Bill, so far as I can ascertain from the record of last week's debate and having listened to Deputy Kennedy this evening, have made no reference to the Shanley report. One would have thought that the Progressive Democrats in moving a Bill and advancing arguments to support the change they seek, would have gone to the source, the Shanley report, analysed it, and, if possible, contraverted its premises and conclusions. It is quite remarkable that they have not done so. I cannot conceive that they have not read it because they are a very thorough party in their operations.
On a point of order, I think the Deputy is mistaken, perhaps because he was not here last week, but the Shanley report was referred to in a lot of detail and contraverted.
That is hardly a point of order.
It is a point of information.
Referred to by whom? Not by Deputy Colley.
There might be a different view after 50 years.
It was referred to throughout the debate.
Deputy Cooney, without interruption, please.
It was referred to by Deputy Noonan; it was not referred to by Deputy Keating or by Deputy Colley. That is the only report I have so far——
Perhaps not by name——
It was not referred to at all because if you do not refer to it by name——
It is time to put it in the dustbin. It is 50 years out of date.
Let that go by the board. The reasons behind the setting up of the Shanley Commission, the arguments put forward in the Shanley report and the conclusions drawn from those arguments have not been adverted to or contraverted in this debate, and the arguments which were made 50 years ago are as relevant today as they were then.
As reported at column 302 of the Official Report for 14 October, 1987, Deputy Colley posed the rhetorical question: why have we devised the system we have? She followed that with another question and a statement. The import of the two latter statements is that we devised the system we have because politicians wanted to reward themselves. That is totally incorrect. The system we have was the result of the report and recommendations of the Shanley Commission. It is totally inadequate in a controversial emotional matter such as this that that rhetorical question should have been answered in that fashion and that the source should have been ignored. I think the reason we have not had comprehensive arguments on the source is because the Progressive Democrats are unable to contravert those arguments. They cannot rebut them because they are as relevant and as convincing today as they were when they were first published.
One has to look behind the Shanley report and identify the basic objective of that commission. It is quite clear that their basic objective was to protect the integrity of high office in this State. It was pointed out that if persons have to serve in high office in Government, while there is no legal requirement there is an absolute convention that they cut themselves off from their previous employment or vocation. That is only proper because obviously there would be potential for a conflict of interests if that rule were not strictly enforced. This was to ensure that there would be no conflict of interest, that the office would be beyond suspicion and that the integrity of government would be beyond reproach. That is a principle of cardinal importance in a democracy, and a principle we must ensure is protected. It was to protect that principle that the Shanley Commission were set up — to ensure that people who would take high office would not be prejudiced by taking such office and that they would not be dissuaded from taking office through fear of being financially prejudiced.
It is obvious that if one takes office and cuts oneself off from one's previous occupation or employment for an indefinite time, which might be a substantial number of years, there is obviously great difficulty, and in some cases an impossibility, in resuming where one left off. Commercial and professional life does not stand still. It is a constant race and if one leaves that race it is practically impossible to resume it on the same terms as when one left. Contacts are lost, knowledge has gone rusty and there are changes in procedures and practices. It is impossible for someone to resume in exactly the same position as when he left that employment to take office. Consequently, it is only common justice that a person who serves the State by assuming office should be protected against the financial consequences that will inevitably follow when that person leaves office. That consideration motivated the Shanley Commission to decide a proper level of remuneration for those serving and a proper compensation for them when they had to give up office. The Shanley Commission considered the possibility of increasing ministerial remuneration to such a level that the holders of office could provide for their future on their termination of office but they decided against that. Instead, they decided to recommend the payment of a pension or gratuity.
If we did not have this protection and people went into office knowing that their term in office was necessarily temporary, to be ended on the change of Government after a short, medium or long term, and that there was no financial buffer for the time they would leave office — in the ordinary run of things such persons could be expected to have domestic responsibilities — there would be a danger that in looking ahead and considering whether they would be able to deal with those responsibilities after leaving office they would be forced to adopt stances or be put in an invidious position that might conflict with the need to be totally and absolutely independent in the running of their office. They might seek out commercial contacts in the course of their office that might be useful afterwards if this protection did not exist.
In my view there are very strong reasons for the original Shanley recommendations, that people cutting themselves off from their previous employment or occupation and unable to go back in at the same level — they may not be able to go back in at all — should be protected when they leave office. If that was not the position, in spite of the attractiveness of office, I am satisfied that many people would have refused office in the past 50 years or so to the detriment of the political life of the country.
It is important that office should be open to all and not just those of independent means who might wish to indulge in politics as a hobby or something of that kind. That was one of the considerations referred to in the Shanley report. I would like to have heard those considerations debated in the House. I would like to have heard what the Progressive Democrats have to say on what I consider to be very real and strong arguments.
In making a case for the Bill, Deputy Colley relied on her statement that it was wrong that a person should have two incomes from the same source in respect of the same or similar employment. The kernel of her objection is that the ministerial allowance, pension or gratuity, is received by the same person who is also receiving a Deputy's allowance in respect of the same or similar employment. Of course, it is not the same or similar employment because being a Deputy is vastly different to being a Minister and Deputy. There is the world of a difference between the two. Indeed, if one were to look at that argument and reverse it, one could say that it was wrong for the same person, to wit the Minister, to be drawing two incomes from the same source in respect of the same or similar employment. It is equally an argument for not paying Ministers a salary and I cannot see that it has any logic or justification.
In the course of the debate, as reported in the Official Report, Deputy Colley said that the idea in introducing the Bill was to right a wrong, to correct an injustice. I presume that the wrong she has in mind is a wrong to taxpayers' generally or an injustice to taxpayers. But I cannot see, if there should be such a wrong to the taxpayers, that the way to correct it is to do a wrong and an injustice to a person who gave up his or her occupation to serve his or her country in Government, as is being proposed. There is a lack of logic there.
Unfortunately, there is a large element of envy or resentment behind the fact that former Ministers are paid an allowance on top of their Dáil salary. Deputy Kennedy touched on this in the course of her contribution. It is a human characteristic, perhaps found in a more virulent form here, to be envious of other people; the "why should he have more than I" syndrome. It is a reflection of that that has inspired this Bill. It is a good wicket to be on politically, it is a piece of opportunism.
Hear, hear.
It is a piece of ill-defined emotionalism because from what I have read and heard of the debate — I will wait for the remainder of the contributions — no cogent or logical reasons have been put forward for a change. I have heard statements to the effect that there is public cynicism about this, that people resent and object to this. We have heard that people are asking: "Why should he have an allowance when he has a Dáil salary?" I can well understand people putting forward those points of view but they are not good arguments for changing what has stood the test for 50 years, something that was devised on the basis of carefully analysed premises and had a conclusion drawn that was irresistible.
I do not think the Bill serves the public interest one whit. It may serve the political fortunes of the Progressive Democrats, or so they may think, but I cannot see that it serves the political interest of the country. In my view it is a mean proposal reflecting an element and an attitude in our society that we would be better off without. There is the further point of view that when people went into office they did so on the basis of a certain financial arrangement given to them by the law of the land. I wonder how this proposal, in the unlikely event of its being passed, would stand up constitutionally because I consider that I have a property right in the allowance that has been granted to me on the basis of the arguments in the Shanley report. I am satisfied because of the attitude of the Government that I will not have to test the point constitutionally but it is one that should have been adverted to by those who are making the case for change. The arguments in the Shanley report are as valid today as they were in 1937 when they were published. I have not read anything so far that shakes them in the slightest.
The Deputy should have been here last night.
I should like to make a number of points about the whole question of pensions. At the outset I should like to state that the main thrust of the Bill is Labour Party policy and has been for many years. Therefore, we will be supporting the measure. I should like to mention something that might be of interest to Deputy Kennedy. Most Deputies before they are elected to this House spend a long time in industry or the services. Some Members of the Progressive Democrats have gone through the same system. A Deputy who comes here after working in industry, the services or in the press, and spends three or five years here loses all entitlements to a pension, including the 20 or 30 years spent in industry or the services. That is a big anomaly which should be dealt with. It means effectively that if a Member of this House or the Seanad having spent 20 or 30 years working in industry or the services, is elected to either House and serves even one term of office they do not qualify for a pension under the existing regulations of the Dáil or Seanad. They do not qualify for unemployment benefit, old age pension or any of the other social welfare benefits to which they have contributed for maybe 20 or 30 years. This is something which should also be looked at because it appears that politicians, as Deputy Kennedy rightly said, should lead but should do so in a manner which ensures fair play for all sections of the community, including Members of the Dáil and Seanad who have given a life-time of service on the political scene. Many of them have to work very long hours in most cases for seven days a week. In this case there is an anomaly but there are many others that should be addressed.
I agree with the principle that if a serving Minister completes his term of office the pension entitlement should be rightfully paid to him or her. However, it should be paid after the term of office has been completed and this is the point where, generally speaking, most of the public and certainly the majority of the Members of this House also agree. When a Minister completes a term of office he has rightfully earned an additional payment for which he has worked hard. That is the crunch point.
Two years ago I moved such a resolution on behalf of the Labour Party but it was turned down by a committee of this House. The reasons given then are those which have been advanced during the course of this debate. Deputy Taylor and I were outvoted by something like 20 votes to two on that committee.
The other question I should like to ask is if it is possible to implement the provisions of the Bill. I dealt with pensions for many years at national level in a number of industries and I do not know of any circumstance where a change in a pension entitlement can, be retrospectively dated by legislation. I have grave doubts as to whether the effects of this Bill can eliminate an existing pension entitlement——
That is nice to know.
I say that for a number of reasons. My understanding of pension entitlement, particularly in regard to widows and orphans, is that you cannot by law eliminate such entitlement. Under existing legislation and under this Bill the right of a wife's entitlement to widow's pension is laid down. I have also grave doubts as to whether life cover can be eliminated. I do not know whether our colleagues in the Progressive Democrats have gone into the legalities of this situation but I should like to see clear-cut evidence that it is possible. It would be better for any person who has served in either House of the Oireachtas who feels they can afford to give away any entitlement they have earned to give it to some suitable charity in their constituency. There are plenty of people in my constituency who would be very happy to have disbursed among them a pension entitlement which I did not wish to have. I am sure that applies equally to any other constituency. That would be less complicated than what we are proposing here. We should concentrate on the main thrust of the Bill in so far as the entitlement should be added after the Member has served the term of office whether by retirement, loss of seat or some other reason.
I should also like to remind the House that we are talking about the wrong subject. We do not have our priorities right. This is an important and emotive issue but what about two thirds of all workers in industry and services who have no pension entitlement? It would be better if we combined our efforts, on an all party basis, to get at least minimum pensions applied to those men and women who work in shops, stores and factories in industry and the services and who do not have a pension after the completion of a lifetime of work, especially as those people are providing the bulk of the finance required to pay even the pensions of Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Successive Ministers promised new Bills, Green Papers, White Papers and so on in regard to pensions but, so far, no Government or party have been brave enough to put such a Bill before the House. We should be correcting the main anomaly which is that the vast bulk of people have no pensions.
I should also like to mention that during my term of office as a senior trade union official, I was party to a number of national agreements and understandings from 1969, most of which provided for an understanding that such pensions would be introduced. However, no Government during all that time provided for a pension based on the content of any of the national agreements. I should also like to make the point — that should be publicly stated — that a TD's pension after seven years is approximately £75 per week. On that basis and because of the fact that that TD would not be entitled to unemployment or disability benefit or, on a means test, to unemployment assistance he would have approximately £75 a week to keep him or her and a family.
Thousands of workers who have served in the Army, the Garda Síochána, as teachers and public servants and, of course, redundant workers after their retirement or redundancy, are entitled to seek, secure and be paid in full time employment. Many of those pensioners, for example, officers, NCOs and men of the Army secured employment last year, some of them in the Houses of the Oireachtas. Could this Bill be used as the thin end of the wedge to get at all of those people who have retired or been made redundant in employment and in the public service in general? I would like an assurance from our colleagues in the PDs that this is not the intention of the Bill. I appreciate that it is specific in that it refers to a particular category but I hope that it will not open the door to attack those people I have referred to, who because of premature retirement found it necessary because of low rates of pension to take up alternative employment.
Like Deputy Mac Giolla in the ESB.
I did not say that. It is important that that point be put on public record because since this debate commenced unease has arisen among people who have given loyal service to the categories I have referred to.
As I said, the Labour Party support the main thrust of the Bill on the basis I have outlined. I believe the intention of our colleagues in the PDs is to correct an anomaly but in so doing we must be careful that we do not raise a number of others. We should be thinking about correcting a large number of anomalies which apply to those of us who have to work on a full-time basis for the people of our constituencies and of the country and have no business or profession to fall back on but rely exclusively on the salaries we get here to keep ourselves and our families.
We had an opportunity this morning of listening to the Prime Minister of Australia addressing us. That was a great honour indeed. One of the things he thought necessary to emphasise was that it was a great honour to address a House of Parliament, especially a House of Parliament elected on a democratic system. He went on to say that in this wide world there are only about 20 truly democratic parliaments. It follows that if it is a great honour to be a Member of such a parliament every citizen of the country concerned should have the right to sit in this House subject only to two conditions: (1) that he is prepared to serve the people as an elected parliamentary representative and (2) that he is elected by a constituency provided, of course, that he fulfils the other legal requirements.
It follows that if a person is to be elected to this House or any other democratic parliament it should be open to every citizen of the State who should not be inhibited or prevented from that through fear that if he were to do so he would suffer a large financial loss. He should be adequately remunerated. I have never come across legislation or a controversy that was started and conducted under such a smokescreen or in such apparent ignorance. Many people in this country believe that Members of this House are drawing Ministers' salaries and Ministers' pensions at the same time. That is widely believed all over the country.
Hear, hear.
I am not saying that the PDs have made that case but I have not heard of them saying or doing anything to deny it.
It was there before we were there.
I will come to that in a minute or two. I do not intend to be personal, but I have a job to restrain myself and I hope I am not interrupted too much. The next belief that is held is that this is a pension scheme that was suddenly and recently introduced by the back door, that it was being practised only by modern-day politicians, and that it is an evil that has only now been discovered. People give the impression that if they had known about it sometime earlier they would have killed it. That is not correct. As Deputy Anne Colley said, it was here before her time. It was introduced by an Act in 1938. I was a politician in 1938, having made my first contribution to the democratic system the previous year. I remained an unpaid politician from 1938 until 1961 when I entered the House of the Oireachtas with Deputy Molloy and others. I am not moaning about it but I would like to put on the record that, like many people who came in that way, I spent a great deal of time and a good deal of money in the political machine organising, canvassing and running a political party between 1938 and 1961 when I became a Member of the Seanad.
All over that time I have seen very little evidence of wealthy politicians. Some people believe there was an influx of them into the Dáil in the last election. I do not know whether there was, but I have seen very little evidence of wealth accumulated by politicians in that time. I saw a good deal of evidence of neglected families. I saw some evidence of destitute wives. I saw shattered businesses and run down farms, all because people chose to serve in this Dáil and in the democratic system. It is true, as Deputy Colley said, that this pension scheme was here before her time. It was introduced in 1938 under the administration of Deputy Éamon de Valera, then Taoiseach, a man complimented here this morning again by the Prime Minister of Australia. During all the years that he was there this scheme was availed of by a number of Taoisigh, either when they were in opposition or when they resigned and left the House, and nobody said they did not have the right to take it. The scheme has been availed of by many Ministers whose parties were thrown out of office or who found themselves out of Ministerial office for other reasons, and nobody blamed them for taking it. I am not impressed by the fact the Deputy Molloy and Deputy O'Malley have decided to forego their pensions as from 1 January next, I understand. They intend to take Christmas out of it. I am not impressed by that. They are two able Deputies. They were two able Ministers. They were two men of considerable influence in the Fianna Fáil Party. They held strong views in the Fianna Fáil Party. They held views of such strength that they refused Ministerial office in that party rather than serve under a leadership of which they did not approve. Many people admired them for that, but I cannot believe that during all those years neither of those Deputies was aware of the Ministerial pension scheme. Both of them drew their pensions. I would have been far more impressed if these Deputies had fought within the Fianna Fáil Party over this pension scheme or had campaigned to have it revoked and if necessary had withdrawn from the party if they were overruled.
Many people admire the Progressive Democrats. People admire them on the grounds that they are honest, or because they bring a breath of fresh air to Irish politics. However, Deputy O'Malley has gone down considerably in my estimation for seeking votes on this mean little political gimmick. That is what it is.
It has been mentioned since I came into this House this evening that politicians are not the only people to draw pensions and salaries from the State at the same time. I emphasise that. Members of the Army draw pensions and salaries in excess of their pension at the same time. The Garda Síochána also do so. Any Government profession with such a scheme avails of it and this has been encouraged now by the offer of redundancy. I cannot help noticing that when this line of argument is mentioned the members of the Progressive Democrats get annoyed and irritable.
You are the only one who seem to be getting annoyed.
Not a bit of it, it is just the way I have of going on.
(Interruptions.)
There is no soldier who draws a salary and a pension at the same time.
The Progressive Democrats get annoyed when it is drawn to their attention that many people draw Government pensions and Government salaries at the same time.
Who are they?
They are all over the place.
They do not get Government salaries. They might get private salaries.
The Progressive Democrats do not like this part of the argument to be referred to. They try to knock me off my thoughts and get me on to something else.
Tell us who they are, because we will change that, too.
(Interruptions.)
That is always a sign that——
(Interruptions.)
The Progressive Democrats have not included all civil servants in their Bill, or members of the Army and the Garda Síochána. Why is that? People do not like politicians. It has become very popular here to jibe at politicians and attack them without any regard for the fact that such action undermines the democratic system but there is no danger of them attacking the Army, the Garda Síochána or the civil servants, because there are no votes there. Deputy Molloy is one of the people in whose reaction one can see the greatest resentment when one mentions the Army. There is a big military garrison in Galway.
There are no teachers in Galway.
That is why I say——
You are really pathetic.
That is why I say that the Progressive Democrats have gone down in my estimation.
You have gone down in my estimation.
They have gone down very much in my estimation.
How many former Ministers——
(Interruptions.)
Excuse me, Deputies. I was about to say to Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick that——
(Interruptions.)
——his physical proximity to the Progressive Democrats should not encourage him to encourage them into a téte-a-téte which is not appropriate to the discussion and which I will not tolerate.
(Interruptions.)
Mr. O'Malley
Perhaps he intends joining us.
I would ask Deputy Fitzpatrick to direct his attention to the Chair and not to look so charmingly and so provocatively at the people in the Progressive Democrats. The Deputy should speak through the Chair.
I want to round off this part of it by saying that it is beyond doubt that this is a political gimmick, an attack on politicians because there are votes in that. They are steering clear of the Garda barracks and the Army barracks and all the rest. If the Deputy wants to put down an amendment to the Bill it is very easy, by way of another section, to include all the other people I have been talking about.
The argument is made that the job of a TD and the job of a Minister are the same job. That is not so. They are as different as chalk and cheese. They are different in the type of work they do. They are different in the authority they have. They are different in the powers they exercise and, above all, they are different in their conditions of employment. There is nothing in the terms of employment of a TD that says he shall not engage in any other work. He is quite at liberty to engage in any other work he likes and he is not asked how much time he devotes to his political activity and how much time he devotes to his private work. In the case of a Minister, not alone must he devote his full time and attention to his ministerial duties, which would mean that he would work from nine to five or whatever hours one likes, but he is forbidden, he is not permitted, to engage in any other business even at 10 o'clock at night, even when he has done a day's work as Minister, even on his half day if he has one. He is precluded from engaging in any other business. That makes it clear beyond doubt that there is a difference, and a big difference.
Of course the Progressive Democrats did not even go to the trouble of including people in receipt of other pensions, Government pensions for being TDs. They did not even have a go at Deputy MacGiolla who is in receipt, as I understand it, of a pension paid by electricity consumers all over this country, rich and poor.
We will put forward an amendment on it.
I am beginning to think the Progressive Democrats would not have the guts.
Do not dare us. Would you vote for it?
Deputy Cooney drew attention to the fact that the Constitution might enter into this. We would not have to go as far as the Constitution. One cannot retrospectively take away from somebody a right that he has led to believe for 20 years he was entitled to enjoy. I honestly believe that this Bill would not stand up in court if it were passed. I do not believe it should pass through this House.
There are many people opposing this Bill. Seeing that they have no objection to Deputies being paid proper salaries and to Ministers getting their proper remuneration, if the Progressive Democrats succeed in withdrawing these pensions, as sure as day follows night there will be a revision of all parliamentary allowances and the net result will be that they will all be substantially increased. That is on record, and now wait and see if I am right or wrong. Then, I want to know, will Deputy Molloy and Deputy O'Malley refuse to take the increases or will all their colleagues refuse to take them. I do not think that they will. They will have their hands out. The Workers' Party and the Progressive Democrats have one thing in common as far as these pensions are concerned. Neither is likely to be drawing any of them or to be bothered with them for a long time.
(Interruptions.)
We might take you down if you are not quiet. I would say there is a seat up in Cavan-Monaghan.
The people of this country are entitled to have as representatives people who want to represent them. Everybody in this country who feels like representing people is entitled to offer him or herself as a candidate. If he or she is elected he or she should not be at a financial loss but should be adequately and properly remunerated. It is that or agree to be represented and governed by people like the Progressive Democrats. The people will probably think a few times before they opt for the latter. With the record of their leader and the record of their next senior Deputy, Deputy Molloy, in having swallowed this Bill and apparently enjoyed it over quite a period of time. I am convinced that the performance of the Progressive Democrats in introducing this Bill and in stirring up a campaign will do them no good. I would hope that the House would be wise enough to reject this effort to——
Take away your pension.
It is all right for people like some of those who are interrupting who are in politics as a sort of a hobby——
Who are they?
——who have no responsibility, who have neither chick nor child, some of them of the yuppie type——
(Interruptions.)
As a single woman who has decided to be childless, I object to that remark.
Deputy Fitzpatrick does not even think women should be in here, I am sure.
Male chauvinism.
Could we have just one interruption at a time.
I am happy to inform Deputy Fitzpatrick that he has three minutes left.
We would be equally happy to hear him.
I should like to say in those three minutes that obviously I got my message home to the Progressive Democrats, but perhaps they have been interrupting all the speakers. This comes from a party most of whom are in politics as a hobby or for kicks.
Please withdraw that remark. Who is in politics for a hobby?
Name some of them.
How dare the Deputy insult people like that? On a point of order——
That is not a point of order. Your rejections do not make it a point of order. You listen to the Deputy who is speaking and you resume your seat.
It is insulting. How dare he insult single women in this manner?
I did not hear any insult.
I have not said a word about single women.
If Deputy Harney would give an example in the matter of good behaviour in the House she might expect it. Deputy Fitzpatrick to continue, without any interruptions, for the next minute.
Deputy Fitzpatrick should name those in the House for a hobby.
I should like to conclude on this note.
It shows the level to which his party have fallen.
If that is all that Fine Gael can come up with I am not surprised that they are in their present position, with the gloomy faces over there.
(Interruptions.)
Would the Deputy give his definition of male chauvinism next time?
When did Deputy Deasy last speak in here? I have not seen him for months.
I was not in the canvassing business the last time.
Excuse me. Would Deputy Harney compose herself?
I am not going to take insults from the Deputy and if the Chair were fair——
You had an opportunity of making your own contribution when you went near to the bone and nobody interrupted you.
What bone?
Deputy Fitzpatrick to continue, without interruption.
Your pension? Is that what it was?
I shall ask you to leave the House now if you are not careful.
The Deputy has insulted the Chair on a number of occasions.
The Chair would not dare ask me to leave the House. I have been elected to this House.
The Chair would not dare try that.
Deputy Molloy will not issue any threats to the Chair.
You are issuing the threats.
You are there to be fair. That is your work.
You are called to be impartial in that Chair.
Deputy Molloy and his colleagues in the PD party have continuously interrupted Deputy Fitzpatrick. The Deputy has one minute to go.
I should like to say, if I may, if I am allowed——
What about injury time?
——that if the Progressive Democrats were sincere and wanted to carry this to its logical conclusion——
That is the Deputy's version. He does not know the meaning of the word.
——there are at least two PD Deputies who are in receipt of large payments from the State. If they carried this to its logical conclusion, perhaps they would think that they should not take those payments, or that they should not take their Dáil salary, that they should merge those payments.
The Deputy does not even understand the principle in the Bill. That is quite clear from his argument. It is beyond his comprehension.
I understand what the Progressive Democrat principle is, that it is a cheap gimmick.
This is giving the Deputy £9,000 a year. It is a disgrace.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, for two reasons in particular. First, it is the first Bill which the Progressive Democrats have put before this House in Private Members' time and as such is an important Bill in the development of this party. Secondly, and most importantly, I welcome this opportunity to join in the debate tonight because of the nature of the Bill.
The Oireachtas and Ministerial Pensions Bill is without doubt one of the most important Bills introduced into this House in recent years. It is also one of the most simple. It is one of the most important because it deals with and relates to us, the politicians — not the man in the street, not the Garda, the Army, the teachers or the civil servants, but us politicians. It is one of the most important because it asks questions of us politicians which must compel us all, as groups and individuals, to consider our position and decide how we want ourselves to develop and to relate to the people.
The Bill is one of the most simple and least complicated Bills because it asks that vital question in an extremely uncomplicated and straightforward manner, a manner which can lead to no confusion, no claims, indecision and no excuses. The question is straightforward and demands a clear and straightforward response. The success of this Bill will have very significant effects. On its own it will not radically transform the national bank balances or provide employment for the scandalously high numbers of people who cannot get work. It will not even do much to reduce the ratio of debt to GNP — this magical 5 per cent mark. However, it will have significant effects. In purely financial terms, the savings to the Exchequer if this Bill is passed will amount to between £200,000 and £300,000. That is not a vast sum of money when compared with the figures which roll off bankers' and politicians' lips when discussing our national debt. Nevertheless, it is not an inconsiderable amount of money. For instance, it would go a long way towards preserving some of the smaller agencies and services with whose finance this Government have decided to pay off our national debt. It would go a long way to ensuring that the NSSB would stay open and that the Ombudsman would not have to see his resources dwindling to the present token level. Much more importantly, however, the passing of the Bill will send out a clear signal to the people we politicians lay claim to serve that we are determined not only to clean up the economy but to clean up our own act, too. Let us be quite clear about it — there is much cleaning up to be done.
There is much more at stake in this Bill than mere money, as my colleague, Deputy Colley, has said recently. It is blatantly obvious to me and, equally I am sure to my 165 colleagues in this House whom I would have thought would be here listening to this debate tonight, that there is growing disillusionment with politicians. This frightening fact is undeniable, despite the fact that we can gather in little groups and bemoan how we are misunderstood, how the public do not understand the work we have to do and the hours that we have to keep, or whatever. Such bemoaning does nothing for the situation. The public see, rightly, that politicians have a specific job to do: their job is to govern the country, to ensure that it, and more importantly its people, reach their full potential, that they are able to get the maximum enjoyment and satisfaction out of their lives. By any of these measures the public can see that the politicians have failed in their job, that they have done a very bad job. If one is in doubt, one need only look at the unemployment, hardship, homelessness, hunger and poverty all around. Perhaps people would prefer to look at the rich, the successful emigrating from our shores. They are happy with their lives; they have the politicians working for them. Is it any wonder that there is disillusionment, cynicism and bitterness?
There is urgent need for political reform. The Bill before us is just one attempt to begin that reform. We in the Progressive Democrats have made many suggestions and set out proposals as to how this can be achieved. We have proposed the abolition of the Seanad. It must now be obvious that despite the grand plans for that House it has become little more than an expensive plaything. This country cannot afford, on the basis of finance and efficiency, to have two inefficient meeting places when what is needed is one modern, professional body which could provide the services the country needs.
We have also proposed a sharp reduction in the number of TDs. The country is obviously not benefiting from the diversity of knowledge and experience which might be expected from 166 people discussing its problems. The only justification for such a high figure is to provide a messenger service here for the public. That should not be the task of Dáil Deputies. Dáil Deputies should be the formulators of national economic and social policy. We should face up to that task. We should cut the number of Deputies and ensure they are not used as messenger boys. Then we could increase both the powers and resources of, for example, the Ombudsman so that people could still have the potential to redress their grievances. This party have long advocated reducing the number of Ministers of State from 15 to seven. Having 15 Ministers of State amounts to little more than jobs for the boys and adds to the cynicism which the country has towards politicians.
The Oireachtas and Ministerial Pensions Bill has a very close relationship to all these proposals. It is a significant move to stop the rot in Irish politics, to face up to our own shortcomings and begin to put our House in order. Politicians are often heard lecturing others on how they want to see this country changed around. They want to see it become more efficient, less bureaucratic, more modern and more businesslike and they wish to see more value for money. We must listen to their calls and we must reform ourselves. That is what this Bill is about. It is the beginning of what will hopefully be substantial change and reform which will ensure that the House from which this country is governed will improve and will be seen to have improved by the people of the country. It is vitally important that the people see an improvement in the running of this House and it is vitally important that their faith in the ability and sincerity of politicians be restored once again.
The Bill itself, is both straightforward and simple. I must admit I am disappointed that there has not been a consensus of support behind us. All the Oireachtas and Ministerial Pensions Bill seeks to do is to prohibit the payment of pensions under the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Acts, 1938 to 1983, and the Ministerial and Parliamentary Office Acts, 1938 to 1983, to the holders of certain offices in the State, notably Deputies, MEPs and serving members of the Judiciary. This Bill does not propose to forbid the payment of these pensions forever, only while the recipients are still employed in certain offices of the State. It is ludicrous to pay these pensions and it is a sad reflection on the state of our parliamentary institutions. This is not meant to deny, however, that everything is fine in these institutions. Sadly, that is not the case and we in the Progressive Democrats are aware of that fact and agree that reforms will have to include the whole area also.
It is wrong, however, to use this argument as a smokescreen to avoid the issue represented by this Bill. The issue is simple: should serving Members of the Dáil and other offices collect pensions from a job which they did as a consequence of their role as Deputies? We hold that they should not and that that is symptomatic of the general degeneration of Irish politics. This has been allowed to persist for too long and we are convinced that there must be reform in this area immediately. These same feelings were found time and again among the general public throughout the country by representatives of this and I am sure other parties both during and since the last general election.
In this regard I am particularly pleased and proud to see that both Deputies Bobby Molloy and Desmond O'Malley had the courage and honesty to follow their convictions and relinquish their ministerial pensions no matter what happens to this Bill. That cannot have been an easy decision for either of those men. It is a sign of their commitment to reform of this House and to politics in this country that they are prepared to undertake that sacrifice and I applaud them for doing so.
Unfortunately, it is not easy to applaud the reaction of other parties to this Bill. This is all the more disappointing when we consider that this Bill is not controversial or party political; if anything it has a strong moral argument supporting it. The other parties in this House have reacted to our proposals as if they were some kind of hot potato, juggling it from hand to hand and then throwing it away as quickly as possible. The parties who have supported the Bill, and we are grateful for their support, have been somewhat less than enthusiastic. The parties who have decided not to support it have offered weak and irrelevant excuses. Fianna Fáil have tried to portray this Bill as casting dark questions over previous recipients of the pensions. They also suggested that the pensions system has served this country well for 50 years and, therefore, that we should not alter it. They are very wrong indeed.
This Bill in no way casts a question mark over the previous recipients of these pensions: it merely asserts that the system is flawed and needs to be changed. Secondly, I dispute their claim that the present system has served this country well for 50 years. If anything, I would argue that the system has served only the politicians well. It has served this country badly and needs to be changed. Fine Gael, on the other hand, have suggested that the whole matter of ministerial pensions should be taken out of the hands of politicians and given to yet another committee to decide upon. I was appalled to hear that suggestion and I was even more appalled to hear it was based on the fact that politicians were too close to the issue to be able to make a good decision. It is precisely because we are so close to this issue that we are able to make a good decision. Politicians sit in this Chamber or in their offices in Government Buildings and constantly make decisions on matters about which they can only ever hope to have limited knowledge. While that is unfortunate, it is inevitable that day in and day out we will make decisions which will affect individuals, families and committees. We make decisions regarding jobs in industries, fishermen at sea, the unemployed, on social welfare from a vantage point of distance. Now we have the opportunity to make a decision about something on which we know virtually all there is to know but someone has shouted "stop, we cannot do anything about this as we know too much about it." That is unacceptable. If it were not so dithering, it would be funny.
I call on Deputy Gay Mitchell. The Deputy has little time at his disposal.
I find it very hard to believe that if we are serious about trying to get funds to keep the Ombudsman's office going and to keep a number of other things going there are parties in the House who are lecturing us on courage and honesty while not having the guts to tackle a section of the community who have not agreed to join any tax collection system for decades. Those who are lecturing the House on honesty and integrity have made no reference to that fact.
Who is the Deputy talking about?
No one in this House has said that there are people who are paying uneconomic rents, that they should be paying economic rents and that we should tackle that problem so that the office of the Ombudsman and the other offices that the last speaker spoke about can be kept going. I say that as a Deputy who feels it is a bit of a pity that pensions are paid. Pensions should be given only when we retire or leave the Oireachtas but I do not feel——
A Deputy
That is what we are saying.
A Cheann Comhairle, this is meant to be Parliament. I object——
We shall be going on to other business in a few moments. Will you allow the Deputy to continue without interruption?
I object very strongly to a measure being introduced into this House which does not address the problem correctly. It sets out to perpetuate a feeling within the community that most of us in this House are over-paid, lazy and indifferent. The fact of the matter is that most of us in here are worse paid than higher executive officers in the public service and work three times as hard, in insecure employment, for that benefit. I did not come in here for any financial benefit. I find it somewhat embarrassing to have to defend myself. I know there will be certain personal remarks thrown in, as there were on previous occasions.
Debate adjourned.