There is agreement on all sides of the House to this welcome feature of the Bill. The salary of a TD will now be established on the same basis as that of every other taxpayer in the community and there will not be any reference to a perception among the public that we get hand-outs of any sort. Section 2 is a welcome provision and we support it.
Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Bill, 1991: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, lines 34 to 40, to delete subsection (5) and substitute the following:
(5) Where it is proposed to make regulations under this section, a draft of each regulation shall be laid before each of the Houses of the Oireachtas and shall not come into effect until such time as a motion approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.
This is a straightforward amendment which says that whenever regulations are to be made under this section they should be brought back to the House and that the positive assent of the House to the regulations should be sought before the ministerial order passes into law and effect. This is all the more important on foot of the advice given to us by the Minister in the Second Stage debate, and in the context of the proposed amendment No. 4 with regard to the fluid position that would obtain under section 5 when the law is passed. The Minister for Finance indicated that because of representations from the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party he intended to adopt a more fluid approach, that he intended to refer the matter back to the Gleeson Committee, asking Mr. Gleeson to adjudicate on the issue of severance pay and other matters. It was hoped to have that report back in the House within three or four months, as indicated by the Minister of State when he was winding up the Second Stage debate.
The Minister of State in concluding suggested that by using this device we would avoid debate on these matters in the House. That forced me to interject then and I posit the question again: what is wrong with having debate on this issue? That is why The Workers' Party are not at all happy about the guillotine and why we criticised the other three parties in the House. Why are we being asked during the last week of the session to take all Stages of this Bill in such a short period?
I listened to the contributions of all speakers today and the point that came across was that what we are legislating for here, from the point of view of Deputies, is not unusual, is not extraordinary and is not unreasonable. I will have something different to say about the pensions proposals for Ministers, when I come to them, but for Deputies in the House there is nothing unusual or out of the ordinary in this Bill. Why should we be afraid to come into the House reluctant to put it on the record and to debate in the open and at length, what we propose to do? Our reluctance to debate these matters immediately draws fire and fuels the perception so many Deputies talked about, that we are doing something that is not entirely above board or entirely normal in matters like this. All regulations generally, dealing with the Bill and ministerial orders, should be available in the House and we should be able to put on record our views, our agreement or our dissent and have the matters voted upon. In that way, no-one could say that we did things on the nod or in a hurry or improperly. In the context of this legislation it is particularly important that all regulations to be made should come before the House and receive the positive affirmation of Members with regard to pay and conditions generally. This is even more important because of the Minister's intention with regard to dealing with representations made to him by members of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party with regard to the severence provisions which will be dealt with by way of regulations.
When this Bill was first circulated we were led to believe that there was a very substantial reaction within the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party and that therefore the Minister would deal with these matters by way of amendment. We thought we would see amendments from the Minister but we now find that the circulated list contains only one amendment from the Minister. That is a very small gesture as a result of what we were told was a very heated debate. I am surprised. My amendment in this regard should be accepted. We should approach this on the basis that in the future we will be relying on recommendations from the independent body of Mr. Gleeson——
Not yet.
——that we will be working on his recommendations and nobody could say that we did not make this issue available for open debate.
In the course of Deputy McCartan's remarks there appeared to be an innuendo that something was not being done above board or that there was a certain amount of nervousness about the legislation. The fact that the Bill is before the House in open debate means that there is not any nervousness about the Bill. There is no question of anything being done beneath the floor boards. Deputy McCartan knows that and he should withdraw these kind of innuendoes. We are all getting a bit fed up with them.
Section 3 provides for the introduction of a new allowance for TDs and Senators in respect of expenses which they are obliged to incur in the performance of their duties and which are not otherwise met from the Exchequer. The Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Act, 1962, empowers the Minister for Finance to make regulations in relation to telephone and postal facilities for Members of the Oireachtas and provides for the same annulment procedure that is being proposed in the present Bill. In like manner, the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial, Parliamentary and Judicial Offices (Amendment) Act, 1983 provides that Government orders increasing or decreasing the remuneration of Members of the Oireachtas or of office holders may be similarly annulled.
Under these provisions and under section 3 (5) of this Bill it would be open to any Member of the House, including Deputy McCartan, to move a motion at any time within 21 sitting days of the regulation or order being laid before the House proposing that it be annulled. Should the Dáil pass such a motion the regulation or order would then stand annulled. This gives the House ample power to annul any regulation in relation to expenses of Members with which it disagrees while at the same time providing an efficient mechanism for putting into effect regulations acceptable to the House. In these circumstances the Government do not propose to accept the amendment.
I should say that regulatory powers are contained in many statutes going back many years. If the suggestion Deputy McCartan has now put to the House were to be contained in several other Bills I doubt very much if the House would do anything other than discuss and re-discuss regulations day in and day out. I do not think that is the way in which any democratic Parliament should proceed and Deputy McCartan knows this.
Let me deal first with the innuendo because I did not for one moment make any suggestion of impropriety or underhandedness. Because the point seems to have been lost on the Minister of State I will make it again. If, in the future, we come to deal with the question of making improvements in the position of Oireachtas Members, in the wake of recommendations from the Gleeson Commission or otherwise, and the matter is dealt with by way of ministerial regulations without any debate taking place in the Chamber a perception would inevitably arise in the public mind that we are doing ourselves a favour without taking the opportunity to debate the matter in the House. I understood that it was the view of every Member of this House that we should be open, clear and above board in everything we do. If that point has been lost on the Minister of State I am sorry but I did not make any innuendo, nor did I suggest that there was anything underhand about the way in which we were dealing with the business today.
The Minister of State has given what I consider to be the standard answer on this amendment. As he quite rightly pointed out, this is not the first time that such an amendment has been tabled. The more the Government make provision in legislation for the nuts and bolts to be dealt with by way of ministerial order, the more they will find amendments such as this being tabled. The primary motivator of this type of amendment is the Government, because it seems whenever a serious issue has to be dealt with in legislation the Government conveniently say that the Minister will deal with it in regulations which he will draft in his own time in his own office, which will be laid before the Dáil and which, in the event of no motion being moved to annul them, will become law after 21 days.
That is the way in which we are going. That practice is leading to this House becoming less relevant and alienating us from the business we should be dealing with. Large amounts of legislation, powers and provisions which deal with everyday problems and conditions are being dealt with outside the Chamber in the offices of various Ministers by way of the regulatory process, not to mention the way in which we deal with European legislation. This is also dealt with by way of regulations. It is not my fault therefore that this amendment has been tabled.
I should say that The Workers' Party do not put down an amendment on each occasion such a proposal is made by the Government. We only do so when we believe it is important that the House should be given an opportunity to have its voice heard and to say yea or nay to a particular proposition. The Minister of State has given the standard response, that it is open to me or any other Deputy in the House to put down a motion and have it debated but, of course, it is not. He is being disingenuous in suggesting that it is. I challenge him to point to one occasion during his time in the House, which approximates to my own — I entered the House in 1987 — on which such a motion was taken. I remember no occasion on which a motion to annul a set of Government regulations was tabled on the Order Paper, taken and debated.
I had an order annulling the hospital charges passed within the last two years.
Well done, I stand corrected.
It can be done at any time.
When was that?
Within the last two years.
I stand corrected by Deputy Howlin who is as helpful and as useful as ever. Therefore, I am told there was at least one occasion——
Its uniqueness makes the Deputy's point.
We had to use very valuable Private Members' time to do it.
As I say, I am aided and assisted.
Great men are sometimes wrong.
As Deputy Quinn has said, that case illustrates just how impracticable it is for Members of the Opposition to find an opportunity, in Private Members' time, to table a motion within 21 sitting days in the hope that it will be taken. It is simply not on.
The Minister of State is unnecessarily drawing down on us the fire of those outside, the detractors whose numbers are increasing if recent opinion polls are anything to go by. When we propose to implement a recommendation made by the Gleeson Commission or want to take an initiative, with the consent of the House, which is what we are doing in this case in regard to telephone allowances — we are endeavouring to catch up in a sensible way and the House has no difficulty with this provision — we should be able to come into the House and put it on the record. If any party such as my own, who have reservations about certain aspects of this legislation, or indeed the Independents, who have not been heard yet, want to say that it is wrong, we should not be afraid to give them the opportunity to speak. This is a very simple proposition. I am afraid the Minister of State is not helping his cause by trotting out the standard response on this important type of amendment.
I am very surprised that we are discussing this amendment. Earlier Deputy McCartan spoke about the need to treat people equally, that we should be treated in the same way as people outside are treated. I do not disagree with that. We set up the Gleeson Commission as an independent body to take this matter out of the hands of the House and to make recommendations. If the Deputy wants the House to be treated in the same way as people outside are treated, then every increase within the public service should come before the House.
As regards every increase that has to be brought before the House, it is always the wrong time. If Deputy McCartan wants fair play and an even playing field, then surely Members of the House are entitled to be treated in the same way. If the Gleeson Commission make recommendations which are laid before the House — these can be discussed in the House, as the Minister has said, but they should not be discussed as of right; otherwise there would be no need to have the Gleeson Commission, and in that event if we wanted an increase, we would bring it before the House and debate it. However, given that we have set up an independent body we should accept their recommendations. If we want to defer increases because of financial constraints, so be it; or if we do not want to accept them, we should dismiss the recommendations.
Is the Deputy pressing his amendment?
I have made my point on the amendment. I gather from the absence of contributions from other quarters that I will not be supported on this matter. As there are other more important amendments to be dealt with, and having made my point, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
It seems extraordinary that the amount proposed of over £4,000, as stated by the Minister in reply to Second Stage — I heard the Minister for Industry and Commerce say on radio that it would be £5,000 — is almost half the frozen tax free allowance figure we had. This tax free allowance on half our salaries was properly awarded by the Revenue Commissioners. There is no precedent in tax law for the Revenue Commissioners freezing a tax free allowance on a political basis. That is extraordinary. We now find that the allowance, which had been frozen at £6,900 but should be about £14,000 now, is being awarded on apro rata basis and is based on the lower figure of £6,900. I do not accept what the Minister said at the conclusion of Second Stage and I am dismayed at the action of the Revenue Commissioners in allowing this political decision to be made on what is a tax matter.
The matter mentioned by Deputy Mitchell is being reviewed and no set figure has yet been suggested. When the report comes to hand the figure will be announced.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 41, after Section 3, to insert "and Section 5".
I am proposing that section 4 (1) read: "An allowance payable under section 3 and section 5 of this Act shall be exempt from income tax and shall not be reckoned in computing income for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts". Section 5 refers to severance pay or termination pay, as it is referred to in the Bill. I did not have an opportunity to look up the current position under the Income Tax Acts on statutory redundancy payments but certainly there is a precedent for payment of statutory redundancy and severance pay in this way. I would therefore ask the Minister to accept this amendment. It would be consistent with a normal application of rules in connection with severance pay and redundancy money.
I am concerned about the limited amount of time for this debate and, therefore, I will just put on record my support for this amendment.
The effect of this amendment would be to make severance payments to TDs and Senators tax free. This special treatment would be out of line with severance payment schemes for office holders and was never contemplated either by the review body or by the Government.
It applies to the Civil Service.
Deputy Mitchell's amendment seeks to exempt from tax severance payments which were to be provided under section 5 of the Bill. However, as announced on Second Stage, the Minister will move an amendment to make section 5 an enabling section, permitting him to make regulations providing for such payments, and the Government will be referring to the review body the question of the appropriate nature and level of such payments. It would obviously — I hope Deputy Mitchell will accept this — be desirable to await the outcome of the review body's deliberations on the matter.
Irrespective of what the position is in regard to office holders — with due respect to everybody, office holders are a little better looked after than everybody else — will the Minister tell the House what is the position in relation to other public servants? It is proposed that Members of the Dáil will not receive allowances in future, but is it not the case that there are statutory severance pay arrangements for public servants from State-sponsored bodies through to the public service? Will the Minister tell the House whether, if he makes an order without this section going through, that order will ensure that Members of the Dáil who receive severance pay will be treated in the same way as permanent public servants and people who work for the broader public service?
As I have stated, the suggestion by Deputy Mitchell is out of line with the severance payment scheme for office holders.
It is not.
I have stated that it was never contemplated by the review body or by the Government.
Why is that the case?
I went on to state categorically that it would be desirable to await the outcome of the review body's deliberations on the matter. That is perfectly reasonable and it should be accepted.
It will not be considered.
We are making legislation here as distinct from awaiting the outcome of any review body, and we seldom do this for ourselves. If the review body recommend at some stage in the future that there be a severance payment, as district from a termination allowance which has a rather deathly ring about it, and if they recommend a particular sum of money, in order that the value of that money be real in terms of its purchasing power to the recipient, it would have to be substantial because it would be subject to tax. That would attract further public opprobrium. The same civil servants who are advising the Minister now will say that they can understand the argument that Deputies are entitled to such a large sum because the amount they receive will be worth only half that sum in purchasing value, but they will say that such a large sum would undermine theProgramme for Economic and Social Progress or some such future programme and, therefore they will not recommend that we be paid. The amendment put forward by Deputy Mitchell, which is purely an enabling measure because regulations will determine the absolute sum of money involved, is a matter over which the Minister has control. I strongly urge him to accept it.
The Minister said that this matter will be reviewed by the review body, but if it is incorporated in the legislation as is proposed, regardless of what the review body recommend, we may still be liable to tax unless we introduce new legislation. I do not envisage any Government in the near future introducing legislation specifically to make severance pay tax free. The Minister in his reply talked about office holders, but the point made by Deputy Gay Mitchell was that no-one in receipt of severance pay is taxed on it. It is always tax free. The Minister has said that if severance pay is exempted from tax in this case it would affect office holders, but we are not interested in office holders. They have done very well out of this legislation and good luck to them. More is required of the backbenchers than a few crumbs, and this matter should be given compassionate consideration by the Government.
To tax any severance pay is ridiculous and is most unfair to the backbenchers who give their services year in year out if they are fortunate enough to be re-elected. The Government should tell civil servants what they want. I can understand that civil servants will outline to Ministers the consequences of their actions, but this is an opportunity that comes very rarely — there are other longstanding Deputies who know how rarely such an opportunity arises. As we will not have this opportunity again either in my time or in the Minister's time we should act on this matter now and be courageous about it.
I would like to ask the Minister on what conceivable grounds redundancy payments for Deputies are singled out to be dealt with in this way. I have heard no argument for this. Secondly, is it not the case that if this amendment or some equivalent amendment does not go through, no matter what the review committee recommend in regard to the treatment of TDs on a par with other people in society — which I think they will probably recommend with regard to tax in this instance — it will not be possible under the Bill as drafted to give effect to their recommendations. We do not wish to pre-empt the review committee: they should recommend what should be done and we will take it on board, as we have done before. However, we should not make it impossible for the review committee's recommendations to be implemented. Therefore, I ask that this amendment or an appropriately adjusted amendment — the Minister's advisers will tell him what should be done — be included for this purpose.
Having been a backbencher until recently, I am quite aware of the reason that I should be compassionate on this matter. However, the key factor is that as of now severance payments are not part of the terms and conditions of employment of Members of the Oireachtas.
Dr. G. FitzGerald
That is why we are fixing it.
If the review body were to recommend that TDs severance payments be given tax free status there would not be any great difficulty because it could be incorporated in the Finance Bill. We can await the report of the review body and, having examined it, the Minister can then make the necessary regulation and arrangements in relation to the tax free status of severance payments which could be then incorporated in the Finance Bill. Deputy Briscoe, among other Deputies, seems to hold the view that if the legislation is not passed on this occasion, the door would be closed on this issue. Let me say that is not the position.
The solution offered, no doubt dispassionately, by the Minister's advisers will do exactly what we do not wish to do. We are now purporting to have on the recommendation of Mr. Gleeson, or somebody else, a special provision to be written into the Finance Bill that will target the spotlight of attention on the fact that uniquely we are getting tax free status. That is exactly the sort of thing we wish to avoid. It is fortunate that the public gallery is empty but on the day we bring in the Finance Bill it will not be so. The whole thing will be written up in a manner that will make it politically impossible for the Minister to introduce the amendment in the first place. If the Minister accepts Deputy Mitchell's amendment now, he is under no obligation to implement it because it is simply an enabling provision, but the review body of the day will be aware that any such sum that they so decide will be automatically tax free and therefore they can attach an absolute value to it. The Minister has been badly advised.
Is it the business of the review committee to decide on matters of taxation? I do not think it is the business of a review committee to decide on taxation matters and the Minister may have missed this point.
It is up to the Minister to give the review body some indication of his views on the matter. I see that plenty of notes are passing over the counter. Many people are in receipt of lump sums that are not taxed. This may be a new procedure for Deputies, but what is wrong with something new? We should adopt the proper procedure when introducing such a measure. We have seen before, when we introduced in the Finance Bill the 19 per cent pay increase for Deputies, everybody did hand-stands and tried to run away from it, but fell into line when the Bill was going to be withdrawn. We should give a clear indication that any severance payment will be in line with public service severance payments. Unlike civil servants we can be knocked overboard at any time of the year — but should we decide to retire after a number of years, a lump sum based payment should be wholly in line with what exists for public servants. I am surprised at the Minister. I do not like the use of the word compassion. I do not want compassion in this House, I want justice.
I can assure Deputy O'Brien that I believe in justice also. It will be open to Members to make the arguments for the granting of tax free status to severance payments.
Dr. G. FitzGerald
Why should we have to?
The review body will be in a position to make their recommendation. To a large extent, Deputy Quinn put his finger on the matter. He felt some would take the view that legislators were being treated in some way more favourably than the ordinary taxpayers unless this amendment is passed tonight. Deputy Quinn has spent a longer time in public life than I and knows there is considerable interest in this debate. I argue the case that should this House take a unilateral decision, the public could take the view that we were acting as judges in our own cause. I would not recommend that we do that.
Who passes legislation?
Dr. G. FitzGerald
We want to be treated the same as everybody else.
The alternative being suggested is that it would be written into the legislation that severance payments would be tax free. This decision on a matter which directly affects their own income would be taken by the legislators but I suggest that sections of the public might well feel that we as legislators were enacting special treatment for ourselves. The review body are independent and will report independently to the Minister and if we await their recommendation, everybody would accept the independence of their report. However, I am not at all convinced that everybody would accept a recommendation that would be seen to be not so independent.
It is regrettable that the Minister for Finance is not present.
Hear, hear.
It is very sad that the Minister for Finance has left it to the Minister of State to put his first Bill through the House. It would take somebody of authority to make a decision on this issue and I fear that the Minister of State is being unduly influenced by the gentleman in the pen. In deciding on the amount of severance pay to be awarded, account can be taken of the tax status of that award. If we make a decision now that any payment will be covered under this section, that will affect the level of payment to be made. In other words the review committee can take into account the precise value of the payment to Members when deciding on the amount to be awarded. The Minister of State should consider the matter again. Had the Minister for Finance or the Taoiseach been in the House, a decision could have been taken very quickly. I am sorry they are not here because far from feathering our own nests, this measure will indicate in advance to the review committee the status of any award and that this can be taken into account when deciding on the level of the award.
I have listened to the views expressed by the other Deputies on this side of this House who have an interest in this matter. I hope I am not being too facetious in saying that severance payments are not foremost in my mind, but who knows when that day may arise? I notice that the Minister has not answered one way or the other, but if the position is that senior civil servants and persons in senior positions in the broader civil service, as it has been described, are not subject to taxation on severance pay then I see no reason that we should draw criticism on ourselves here tonight if we were to make the amendment suggested by Deputy Mitchell. Perhaps the Minister of State would confirm that senior civil servants and other persons within the broader Civil Service are not taxed on the lump sums they receive by way of severance pay on retirement.
It seems that a lump sum payment free of tax is a much more equitable method of payment. I may be wrong about this and there are those who are better advised on the subject, but the simple reason for my belief is that there are some individuals who are better able to off-load their tax burden. If they were paid sums of money as income and had other independent forms of income, would it not be open to them to shift the liabilities on the tax they may have to pay? I believe that this proposal provides a much more equitable way of achieving fairness among all Deputies, that they get a lump sum free of tax that is theirs to spend. As other Deputies have said, whatever recommendation is made can take into account the fact that the sum is a tax-free payment.
Those are two observations. If the answer to my first question is that the severance payment to senior civil servants and others in the wider public service is tax free then there is absolutely no reason that the position should be otherwise for Members of the House.
I have a point to contribute to this debate. I think that Members are being a little unfair to the Minister of State in the sense that he is well able to manage his own brief and make his own decisions on the brief before him. I do not need to make that point on his behalf.
I do not want to enter into the argybargy about the principle enshrined in the proposed amendment, but I would like to say that I, as a long-serving Member of the House, do not disagree greatly with the views expresed by Deputies about the principle of a tax-free severance payment. If severance payment is tax free for other areas of the public service then I recognise no reason that the position should be different for Members of the House.
The debate is bringing us into the whole issue of leadership in our own cause. I have always taken a strong view on behalf of the House that we are really the authors of our own misfortune in many aspects and that often when we have been shouting our own cause from the rooftops we have been standing back from it.
The Minister has made a decision and I am not going to disagree with him in relation to the principle that he has pronounced, namely, that he intends to send the matter to the Gleeson review commission and that if, at the end of the day the commission make a recommendation on severance pay, that recommendation shall be enshrined in an upcoming Finance Bill. So far as the point made by Deputy Quinn is concerned, it would not matter to me whether the provision were contained in the Bill before the House or in a Finance Bill. I do not consider that by including such a provision in this Bill Members are going to get away with some kind of subterfuge, but if the provision must be included in a Finance Bill, so be it. I would not be at all concerned about what people might say about that.
The point I wish to make, and I agree with Deputy Briscoe in this respect, is that some of us have been Members of the House for a long time. I am not suggesting that because one has been 27 years in the House one should have any extra rightsvis-à-vis other Deputies. We are privileged and are proud to be elected by the people but we have been doing ourselves a disservice for too long in taking advice from wrong and different quarters. We should take our own advice, we should look into our own consultations and make our own decisions here openly and frankly. I feel very strongly that we would be doing a disservice not only to ourselves but also to future generations of Dáil Deputies if we did not give ourselves a tax-free severance payment.
I do not intend to address the matter much further, but I would say that Deputy McCartan's views on the Fianna Fáil Party's discussion about the Bill are way off and that keyholing the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party does not help the debate, a debate that is healthy, good and worth while. The debate centred mainly on the question of the amount of severance pay that would be awarded and the three months' severance pay. The impertinence of the idea that a Dáil Deputy would at the end of his or her day receive only three months' severance pay is what I am denouncing. It demonstrates a lack of leadership in our own cause. A suggestion came from some genius outside the House that those of us who would receive three months' severance pay should have our pensions suspended during those three months. I do not want any severance pay at all if it is to be for only three months. I would not say thank you for it. I think we should get severance pay for a minimum of 18 months and for a maximum of two years.
What can be done for the Ministers and the Ministers of State? They are doing quite well, and properly so. I do not begrudge that at all but there should be even-handed treatment so that whether one is an ordinary Member of the House, like ourselves, or a Minister or Minister of State one gets the same fair play. That is what we are asking of the front benches. Let our voice be heard, let it be heard in our own cause and let us not stand back from that cause. Let us give leadership.
I do not wish to deal with the three months' severance pay aspect yet because that is being dealt with in the next section but I wish to say that the Minister of State seems to be apologetic in relation to accommodating Deputy Mitchell's amendment to section 4. The Minister seems to have difficulty with the provision that the severance pay should be tax free.
The amendment could easily have been worded to state that the severance pay in this case be treated in the same way as it is for others who receive such payments. There should be no difference whatsoever. No more than Deputy McCartan, I do not intend to look for severance pay in the immediate future, but if provision has to be made in legislation and if we are not able to stand up unashamedly for what is right and correct, we are not worth our salt and the sooner we get severance pay and are out of here the better.
Dr. G. FitzGerald
The Minister is confusing two separate issues.
We are about to legislate the manner in which whatever provision is made should be made; that is our job. We recognise that it is desirable that the amount of any payment should be recommended by the Gleeson Commission and that the Government should then take approporiate action with regard to that.
If we were to accept the suggestion that the issue be left open then the Gleeson Commission would not know whether the severance payment was to be tax-free so how could they decide the amount? Our job in the House is to decide the principle that our severance pay should take the same form as that of everyone else. There should be no discrimination. That having been decided, and we should decide it now without wasting any more time since there are other matters to be discussed, the Gleeson Commission can decide how much it should be, how long a period it should cover or what the amount should be. That is the way we should legislate. They cannot legislate whether it should be tax-free or not. We do not want to legislate about the amount until we get their advice. Therefore, logically we should determine that it should be on the same basis as everybody else, we should not be discriminated against as regards the principle or the method but the amount is a matter for the Gleeson Commission. It is quite straightforward, that is the net issue and the Minister should see that and accept it at this point.
I should like to make a brief point also. This provision is relevant to highlighting a point. I agree with what Deputy Andrews said to whom I was listening outside the Chamber as well as inside.
This Bill is quite extraordinary in the way it treats everyone except Government Ministers. A point worth making with regard to this section, and the amendment, is that the Bill is proposed by a group of Ministers currently in Government who are exempt from its provisions. Its provisions will impact on every backbench Member of this House or, indeed, Opposition Member whether on the Front Bench or Backbenches regardless of the length of service they have given in this House. One could be in this House for ten, 20 or 30 years and this Bill provides for three months' severance pay in the circumstances outlined. Equally one could be in this House for three weeks, be on the right side of the Leader of one's party that happens to get into Government, or be in this House for a mere four years, and discover suddenly one is entitled to two years' severance pay. That may not relate to one's abilities as a parliamentarian but simply to whether one happens to be on the right side of some particular leadership dispute at a given time.
I take the view — and it is relevant to make the comment on this section — that that is debilitating as a legislative process. Instead of trying to encourage people of talent to come into this House and devote their full energies and time to acting as legislators it is a direct disincentive.
Dr. G. FitzGerald
Yes.
It is designed directly to discourage people from being full-time legislators because it says to them: if you have the courage to come in here and not have an outside job, if you cannot keep your seat at the next election for acting full-time as a legislator, both you and your family may be left in far more vulnerable financial circumstances than would be the case if you simply got an ordinary job on contract outside this House.
To some extent Members cannot complain, we are all volunteers, we are not here by compulsion. Nevertheless, being a volunteer does not mean that one has to be a masochist and impose even greater difficulties on one's life than arise from the job itself.
It is my view that Deputy Gay Mitchell's amendment is more than reasonable and sensible. Nevertheless even that amendment will not resolve the problem caused by this section. I must say — and I do not mean any disrespect to the Minister present; it is the first time he and I have been in the House when he was taking a Bill as Minister; I congratulate him on his appointment — it is indicative of the regard the Government have for the ordinary Members of this House, that there is not a senior Government Minister in this House taking this Bill through Committee Stage. It is indicative of a contemptuous disregard for the feelings of Members of the House.
Moral cowardice.
I find it extraordinary that the Fianna Fáil Members tolerate this Bill going through all Stages in this way in a single day. I have said enough. There are other issues I should like to address on this Bill, as I am sure would other Members. The amendment proposed by my colleague is a sensible one. I hope it will be taken on board. Nevertheless it will not address the fundamental problems with this Bill which are based on a perception that only people living in the rarefied atmosphere of Cabinet could regard as a fair perception of the way Members of Parliament who are not members of Cabinet should be treated.
I was remiss in not congratulating the Minister of State on his appointment. I commiserate with him in the lonely position he now occupies, somewhere between a rock and a hard place. I do appreciate that he is perhaps being advanced conflicting arguments. We are endeavouring in public debate to negotiate revised terms of conditions of employment for ourselves and future Deputies. Others must participate in that, including the various committees that determine the relevant rates of remuneration, but we are determining the conditions on which those rates shall be struck, including severance terms.
It could be argued by people in what used to be the Department of the Public Service in Setanta House that it does not suit the Government of the day to draw direct comparisons between the terms of engagement of the permanent public service and temporary members of the public service such as ourselves, but in this instance equality of treatment is advisable.
I suggest the Minister consider accepting this amendment and take it to the Seanad because we are taking all Stages today. Were we meeting at another time in another place we could request the Minister to take it to Report Stage, recognising the Minister's position and the fact that, as a junor Minister, he is obliged to consult. But, having regard to the nature of the matter, I strongly urge the Minister to accept the amendment being pressed by all sides, take it to the Seanad and, in due course, having consulted with those he must, decide finally in the Seanad. If necessary he should return to this House when all of us would understand that the decision had been made elsewhere.
I should like to correct one misconception of which Deputy Shatter may not have been aware, that I am not exempt from the provisions of this Bill.
I said senior Cabinet Minister are.
I fully accept, nobody more than I, that there is no question of any Member of this House trying to feather his or her own nest. I fully accept the weight of the arguments presented. That is why I am particularly glad that the weight of the arguments has been so strong. It is my belief that, in reaching their conclusions, the review body will, of necessity, take into account the views of Members.
With regard to Deputy Dr. FitzGerald's point on how the review body would set the scale of severance payments in the absence of knowing whether they were to be tax-free, it is my view — if the situation were to be in line with office holders — that the review body would decide that on the basis of percentages of salary. In making their recommendations to the Minister they would take all the circumstances on board so well outlined in this House. I certainly expect the review body to do so.
In reply to Deputy McCartan, I should say he is correct in saying that senior civil servant's lump sums are tax-free. I expect also that the review body, in arriving at their decision, will take that fact into account.
Dr. G. FitzGerald
Why have we not the guts to do it; this is a Parliament we are in.
Either we have the guts to do so or we have not.
I might add that I have the greatest sympathy for Deputies on all sides of the House in relation to this matter. The terms and conditions will be considered by the review body, referred to the Minister for Finance, who must then, by regulation, set down what will be the position or state of play. I appeal to Deputy Gay Mitchell — having stated that I consider the contributions made to have been worth while and carrying great weight — to allow the review body get on with their task, make the necessary recommendations which I have no doubt the Minister for Finance will weigh up very carefully.
Dr. G. FitzGerald
But this House cannot weigh them up.
It is disingenuous of the Minister to put before the House the advice of public servants who would not take this advice. The Minister, being new to the office — in which I wish him every success; I am sure he will make a fine Minister; but it is regrettable he was sent here to deal with this Bill in this fashion — will find it difficult on the first occasion to tell his civil servants that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
I would say to the Minister, in equity, in the sense that if this is paid tax-free it is worth the same to everybody — it is like a tax credit — whereas if it is taxable it will be worth more to some than to others, dependent on their appropriate rates of tax. First, it would be equitable and, second, the review body, in advance, will know its exact value for each Member because they will know its tax status.
In equity and by way of assistance to any review body, it is practical and proper that the House should take this decision now. I recommend to the Minister that he accept the will of the House. This is the Legislature and there is obvious support right across the House for this. If we were taking Report Stage tomorrow or the following day, the Minister would probably agree to consider this matter before then. However, we are to take Report Stage within an hour. Let the Minister take Deputy Quinn's advice and bring this to the Seanad. If he is not happy with it, he can come back to this House and amend the Bill. In equity and to give the review body advance knowledge of this matter, the Minister should accept the amendment.
I am not in any way closing the door on the suggestions being made. It would be a matter for regulation.
Dr. G. FitzGerald
It cannot be a matter for regulation.
It is a matter for the recommendation to be made. It can then be inserted in the Finance Bill.
Not by regulation.
No, I accept that. I was talking about the recommendation from the review body. The door is not being closed. There is no question of legislation being passed tonight which would mean that the severance payment could never be tax free. The door is open in the Finance Bill. The terms and conditions of employment have, in relation to other issues, been referred to the review body. While I respect the arguments made and have the greatest personal sympathy with them, I would ask Deputy Mitchell to allow the matter to proceed to the review body.
Why does the Minister intend to treat Deputies and Senators differently from officeholders and permanent public servants? This is the Legislature. If we decide to pass this, the Gleeson Commission can amend consideration of any severance pay based on its known status as equal in tax terms in the hands of each Member of the House. Surely that is fair and equitable and nobody can argue with it.
I repeat that I have a good deal of sympathy with what Deputy Mitchell is saying and I understand him precisely. It is disingenuous to suggest that I am saying the severance payment would not be tax free. I have stated that the review body will examine the matter in relation to the terms and conditions of employment of Members of the Oireachtas. The review body have made recommendations previously which have benefited Deputies and Senators to a certain extent. I strongly believe that the review body should be allowed to get on with the job, taking into account the strong protestations and the weighty and in many instances unanswerable arguments of Deputies. This debate has been very worthwhile and every speaker who has contributed has made his position quite clear and argued his case very strongly. I would imagine that in looking at the proposals the review body would have to take into account the anomalous position which clearly exists between severance payments which would not be tax free for Oireachtas Members and severance payments or lump sums for senior civil servants which would be tax free. I would have the greatest confidence that the review body would take the views of Members into consideration. The review body should be allowed to get on with that task and the matter should then be reconsidered.
Why did the review body not look at that point the last time? Why is the Minister sure they will look at it next time?
Dr. G. FitzGerald
The Minister is unable to give any reason for this House to adopt legislation which he himself describes as anomalous. I hope Deputies will vote in accordance with the logic of the debate.
The debate has not been advanced by abusing the Minister of State. I do not have to make the Minister's case since he is well able to stand up for himself. He has been a backbencher for some time, not quite as long as I and my good friend, Deputy McCreevy.
The Deputy's day will come.
If the Deputy keeps saying that, it will never come. While I agree with much that has been said by the Opposition, the Minister's proposal is very reasonable. The reason the review body did not make the recommendation in the first instance is obviously that they did not think of it. We are asking them, almost instructing them, in relation to what we want as Dáil Deputies. Taking account of the direction in which the Minister's mind is going, we have to do the best we can. We must make strong recommendations to the Gleeson Review Body and almost instruct them — although that is probably putting it a bit too strongly — to make a recommendation which we can enshrine in the Finance Bill. We must ask them to make the recommendation that severance pay be tax free and that the duration of severance pay be certainly not less than 18 months. That is not unreasonable.
I do not want to compare what is being done for backbenchers with what is being given to officeholders. The latter are being given a special position. The reason they are officeholders and we are on the backbenches is very obvious — we have not been preferred. So be it. Why should we as non-officeholders be discriminated against? It is quite wrong. It is a direct insult to the non-officeholders, the denizens of the backbenches, those creatures who haunt the backbenches over the years. I am proud to be a Member of the House and whether I am an officeholder or a backbencher is irrelevant. I want evenhanded treatment and I do not see that when somebody offers us a pittance of three months' severance pay——
It is derisory.
Yes, it is a derisory suggestion and I do not want anything to do with it. If they offer me three months' severance pay, I will not accept it because I see it as a direct insult. It is not that I do not want it. I am not into the PD practice of handing back the pension. I have earned my pension and I pay substantial tax on it. As a principle, I want my pension because I have earned it and I will not give it away to anybody.
The Progressive Democrats did not earn it.
That is a matter for them. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for his patience and indulgence. All I am saying is that——
The Deputy is somewhat on section 5.
I am jumping from one to the other. All I am doing is asking for even-handed treatment for all Members of the House, officeholders and non-officeholders.
On Second Stage I referred to termination allowances. Like Deputy Andrews and others, I believe Deputies should be treated in an even-handed way. As I have said, the three months' period was derisory. The Minister proposes in amendment No. 4 to delete section 5 and insert a new section 5 which will enable him to determine the rate of the severance allowance. I see much merit in the amendment put forward by Deputy Gay Mitchell. The new section 5 will give the Minister the power to grant termination allowances to former Members of the Oireachtas and will not contain any reference to the three month period which I regarded as derisory. While I am somewhat sceptical as to when the Minister may bring such regulations before the House I am glad the reference to the three months period is being deleted from the Bill.
Deputy Mitchell in his amendment is seeking to exempt these severance allowances from income tax, as would apply in regard to severance allowances paid to the people who are advising the Minister.
(Interruptions.)
I would not insult the bookmakers by going that far with that amount of money. I do not accept the arguments put forward as to the cost involved——
There would be no cost.
There would be no cost as the new section 5 will merely give the Minister the enabling power to make termination allowances. It will be some time before any recommendation in regard to the level of these allowances is made by the Gleeson Commission, a subcommittee of the House or the Department of Finance. All Deputy Mitchell is seeking to ensure in his amendment is that these allowances will be exempt from income tax whenever they are introduced. This is a good proposal because, if we do not do this now, we will have to do so whenever they are introduced. Once the principle of severance allowances or redundancy allowances are established an amendment will probably have to be introduced in a Finance Bill to exempt them from income tax. This would have cost implications. Deputy Mitchell's amendment will not cost anything. The Minister of State said that this could be done under a Finance Bill. If this proposal costs too much it can also be removed by way of amendment in a Finance Bill. Therefore, I do not see any harm in including Deputy Mitchell's amendment in the Bill——
An each way bet.
Deputy Mitchell's amendment will not lead to any loss for the Exchequer. If it causes a lot of difficulties down the road and bodies such as the Gleeson Commission believe it costs too much, an appropriate amendment can be included in a Finance Bill to delete the provision from the Act. Therefore, I do not understand why the amendment cannot be accepted.
I agree entirely with what the last speaker said. If we do not address this issue this evening and have to come back to it in perhaps two years time when Gleeson or someone else reports on it — I would have considerable worries about Mr. Gleeson's availability because of his involvement in other events to look at this issue for at least another year — we will have the sort of moralising hypocrisy in the Progressive Democrats displayed earlier today in their speeches on this Bill, attacking Deputies for looking for some exceptional tax benefit which the general public get in similar circumstances. It is very interesting to note that there are no Members of the Progressive Democrats in this House. Has anyone explained to Deputy Pearse Wyse who has been a Member of this House for, I think, 25 years, the implications of this Bill for him as opposed to its implications for his ministerial colleagues? It is very unfortunate that this Bill is being dealt with in one day. The message being given to the Minister by all sides of the House is that we should bite the bullet and pass this amendment tonight so that we do not turn this into some sort of spotlight for the moralising public debate which goes on about TDs, their worth and their salaries when all we want is for people to be treated equally.
I want to point out that I am not making a special plea for myself. I am in the fortunate position in which if I lost my seat I happily have a job I can go to outside this House. I preserve that position not only in the interests of retaining my sanity but in the interests of my family. I have nothing but admiration for Members of this House who take the risk of doing nothing but working as full-time TDs. As I said, I am not making a special plea for myself. If I lose my seat in an election I will happily survive. However, it is not right that Members of this House who devote themselves full-time to working as TDs and do not have the safety net which Deputy Andrews or I have, should be treated in a way in which no public servant at the service of this State in the permanent Civil Service would tolerate.
Second class citizens.
Like Deputy Shatter, I would not like to think that this Bill would give me any great advantage. Neither would I wish to be seen to be making a special plea for myself because, like Deputy Shatter, Deputy McCreevy and Deputy Ahern, I have a profession from which I do well. Those of us in that special position have an obligation to Deputies who are not in that position. I would make a special case for full-time Dáil Deputies. I have a low opinion of the level of salary Deputies receive. When I have paid the Revenue Commissioners what I owe them in tax I get very little from my Dáil salary and ministerial pension. I do not make any complaint in that regard, rather, I am making a special plea for full-time Dáil Deputies who should be treated properly.
Deputy Mitchell's amendment seeks to ensure even-handed treatment of Deputies. I am not foolish enough to say I would vote for Deputy Mitchell's amendment but I ask the Minister to give it further consideration. I accept that the Minister has devoted generous time to the amendment and has made his case very well. However, I ask him to have another look at the amendment. We need to make this House as attractive as possible not only for current Members but also for future Members who can regard it as a place in which they will get a proper salary.
It is only fair play.
We must also bear in mind that we are dealing with an unusual profession. Dáil Deputies have one of the most uncertain jobs in the community. We have to seek election — sometimes we have to do this twice in one year — and put our jobs on the line. That is what democracy demands of us and we have no objection to it. However, I know Deputies who gave up their jobs when they became Members of this House but tragically lost their seats sooner than they anticipated. Some of those people had no jobs to fall back on. That is the position in which a Dáil Deputy can find himself; it is a very tenuous existence. Some of us have been lucky to be here for a long time but that is because we are in constituencies which appreciate us.
Very nice.
There are constituencies in which Deputies are not appreciated.
And where the boundaries can be changed.
Yes, there are all sorts of vagaries and obstructions in the forward march of Deputies on behalf of their country. If we intend to be even-handed let us be even-handed not just for this generation of Deputies but for future generations. I urge the Minister to look at this amendment very seriously and I support Deputy McCreevy in this regard. As I already indicated, the Gleeson review body will certainly have my views on the record of the House. I repeat that the severance period is an insult although, as Deputy McCreevy said, it is a good principle. Why ruin the principle in a mean way by specifying three months? As far as I know — the Minister might clarify this point — Deputies in receipt of a Dáil pension will have to relinquish it during the payment of that pathetic offering, which is an insult. If it is allowed to stand — although I do not think it will — we are doing ourselves an injustice. We are also doing a disservice to politics, politicians and democracy.
I fully support this amendment and everything inside me tells me we should vote for it. It is not a policy decision and I am very tempted to vote for it. We are being equated with the Civil Service. The Civil Service talk about terms and conditions of employment but we do not have any. In a sense, we have to make out own or depend on a committee to do so.
We can always say that we almost voted against it.
I will have to be held back because it is right. As Deputy Andrews said, in a sense we are being abused by the manner in which the section was put into it. It is an insult to us.
The difference is that in this instance it is self-abuse.
That is the Deputy's forte. As Deputy Andrews said, a three months' Dáil allowance, fully taxed, would mean that you were getting nothing and the civil servants know this. I keep referring to civil servants because they advise the Minister. I do not know whether the Minister can get sanction for change when the Bill goes to the Seanad——
We will do it here and let them change it in the Seanad. We must not pass the buck.
I do not think the Bill will be changed in the Seanad. We will not get an opportunity like this again and, Deputy Quinn rightly said, if this is in the Finance Bill it will be focused on. I observe that there is not a single member of the press in the gallery but, no doubt, there will be all sorts of reports about this Bill. People who have a lot less service than I have will not get another opportunity to do this. I welcome a press reporter to the gallery.
The Deputy should address the Chair.
I know the difficulties of the Minister of State and the extent to which his brief allows him to accept amendments. He is in the invidious position of having to put the Bill through. The last thing I want to do is embarrass this very able young man; no doubt he has many years ahead as a very successful Minister. He will probably not be a backbencher for 27 years, which is how long Deputy Wyse and I will have been here next April.
There was a lot of hypocrisy attached to some of the contributions by the Progressive Democrats on this and they do not have any respect for the families of people who dedicate themselves full-time to politics. Perhaps the Minister of State will consult the Minister and they will be able to change the Bill in the Seanad.
It will be too late then.
It will not be too late and if the Seanad changes the Bill it will have to come back here anyway.
I am sure the House would wish me to confirm that when we talk about the Civil Service we talk about people who are absent and we never imply any criticism of persons who are present.
I join other Members in expressing dissatisfaction at the taxation of the severance payment. For many years I have dealt with people who have been made redundant and I see the amount they receive tax free. To talk about taxing the measly sum in question is a joke. Members who are lucky, or unlucky, depending on the way you look at it, in losing their seats will not qualify for a pension during the term of the severance payment. I ask the Minister to examine the whole question again and to treat us as rational human beings.
Many backbenchers have a full-time career in politics. Somebody mentioned the tenuous existence in politics and I am sure that is experienced by the wives and families of politicians. We waited a long time for the Gleeson report and it was unfortunate that there is a provision in the Bill causing divisiveness between Ministers and Ministers of State and backbenchers. I fully support what speakers said on this side of the House. The offer to ordinary Members of the Oireachtas is derisory. It is unfortunate that in framing the legislation this factor was not evaluated or weighed in advance. We should not even be debating this matter in the House. However, at least there is cohesion of thinking between the Fianna Fáil side and ourselves in relation to the injustice which has been done. We all know what a tenuous existence politicians lead. We all know what ordinary workers get by way of redundancy, which is tax free. Not enough thought went into this, it is time to redress and evaluate the system.
I support fully what Deputy Gay Mitchell said earlier, that it is not too late to try to do something about this matter. I pay tribute to the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donoghue, who is being left in the House, almost for a baptism of fire, and I trust he will see commonsense in relation to this legislation.
Far be it from me to offer you advice — you have often offered me advice — but there are other sections in the Bill, particularly the next section, which is of far greater importance than this section. I cannot for the life of me see why it has taken us so long to get a consensus on this section.
The Deputy will appreciate that this section is not unrelated to the next.
It is clear that no amendments to this Bill will be accepted. The reality is that the amendment I have proposed is the fairest way of dealing with it in so far as it would be worth the same amount to every recipient. From a tax point of view it would be tax equitable and from the point of view of the review body knowing in advance what it would be worth, it would be the fairest way to deal with it. It is clear from all sides of the House that there is very strong support that the will of the Legislature is to proceed by means of the amendment because it is the fairest and most equitable way. It is clear that a precedent has been created in the public service, that is how other public servants are dealt with. I cannot understand why we have spent so much time on this amendment and why the Minister will not accede to the will of the Legislature. It seems clear, if he cannot accept this amendment, that it is a waste of time discussing any part of this Bill because the Cabinet decided what would be contained in it and, since they had made the decision it was tough for everybody else. It is unfair not to accept the will of the House in terms of fairness, equity and of giving notice to the review body as to what it will be worth in our hands. This is the way to deal with it and I am asking the Minister to consider accepting the will of the House and allow this amendment to go through.
I would like to say to Deputy Mitchell, through the Chair, that I would not consider the debate to have been not worthwhile. I would consider the debate to be more than worth-while. Deputy Belton asked why the review body, on the last occasion, did not consider that the severance pay should be tax free. The review body on that occasion were not given a brief to examine pensions of Teachtaí Dáil. To clear up any confusion, we are not speaking about a lump sum but a recommendation from the review body about a continuation of salary. The recommendation was that the continuation of salary would be taxed. In relation to the severance payments which may arise now I should like to say, in this context, in all probability it will be considered to be a continuation of salary. Having said that, I would like to say that the review body have been asked to look at the paltry three months severance payment period for Teachtaí Dála and I hope they will make a positive recommendation in that regard. I agree with Deputy Andrews — who has vast experience — and others such as Deputies McCreevy, Briscoe and Opposition Deputies, that where a Deputy would get a three months severance payment it would be considered an insult.
In order to see if Deputy Mitchell and myself can meet in some way in relation to this issue all I can do is suggest that Deputy Mitchell agree to allow me to discuss the matter with the Minister between the period when this Bill is passed and is sent to the Seanad. It would mean that the Seanad would have to pass an amendment — if that were to occur I could give no guarantee — and it would mean that the matter would come back into this House. That is as far as I can go. I would ask the Deputy to accept that and the assurance that the review body will be asked to consider the matter in great detail if that is necessary and if the matter is not resolved to his satisfaction in the Seanad and subsequently in this House.
If I were to accept the Minister's approach in this regard would the Minister of State undertake to inform the Minister that it is the overwhelming view of this House that this is the fairest and most equitable way to deal with this matter?
The only undertaking I can give Deputy Mitchell in that respect is that I would, with the greatest respect, request the Minister to read the record of tonight's debate.
I think there is what might be called an emerging consensus. It appears that the Minister has now effectively met the amendment. In the backbenches I have no power but I have a responsibility whereas the Minister has power and responsibility but what the Minister is saying effectively is that he may accept Deputy Gay Mitchell's amendment at the end of the day. He is asking Deputy Mitchell to allow the discussion proceed to another section by withdrawing his amendment for the time being, but keeping it there in a technical sense to allow the Seanad to deal with it. I cannot stress how strongly we in this House agree with Deputy Mitchell's amendment. There has now emerged not only a consensus view but a unanimous view and the Minister said if he was not prepared to accept the amendment he would make a recommendation, based on the views expressed in the House, to the Gleeson review body. The views expressed to that committee would be that this House feels there should be a tax free severance payment.
As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle said when he was in the Chair, there is another section which deals with the severance pay aspect. I understand it is to be called the determination payment. These are only words but the principle is there. As Deputy McCreevy said, the only problem we have with the severance payment is that it is not long enough.
I have been perusing the section before the House, and subsequent sections and it is evident that the more one looks at it the more one cannot appreciate the reason office holders are being treated in this way as against backbench Deputies — the foot soldiers of democracy. One could query the treatment the office holder will get under the provisions of this Bill, but I will not get down to that, we are being offered a three months severance payment. I understand from one of my accountant colleagues that during the currency of that three months suggested severance payment those of us who are in receipt of the ordinary Dáil Deputy's pension will have that pension lifted.
Like others who have been in this House a long time I am making a special plea. This Bill, whether it contained provisions for severance payments or any other payments, is of no advantage to me one way or the other. I know people will say "hurrah" and "halleluiah" when I make the point that I would be better off, in financial terms, with my pensions than I am serving here as a Dáil Deputy. That is a fact, because I am a practising barrister and have already declared an interest. At the end of the day the Revenue Commissioners get their whack from my earnings at the Bar and from my Dáil salary so that my ministerial pension is meaningless to me after tax. The only time I will become advantaged is when I retire from politics. That is when my pension becomes realistic and important. When I give up the Bar that is when they will become more important.
I do not make any apologies for the pension I earned as a Minister of State nor do I apologise for the pension I will get after my long term of service in this House. I earned the pension and I will not go craw-thumping to anyone to suggest that I should not be paid them. Of course I should be paid the pensions. I do not propose to put myself in a special position as against anybody else. I have given a lifetime to public service and if the pension goes along with that at the end of the day, I accept it not with a sense of great gratitude but because I have earned it, because I deserve it and it is what I am entitled to as would a citizen working in any other job.
Let us not underplay the proposal being made by Deputy Gay Mitchell. It is a reasonable proposal. I believe the Minister is meeting it. He has asked Deputy Mitchell to take a particular position and, knowing that the Deputy is concerned about the present and future generations of Dáil Deputies, he might concede the point to the Minister. The Minister is an honourable and able man who has placed his word on the record of this House. We can take it that the record will show what the Minister said and that he did not engage in double speak. We should take the Minister's word and get on with the other sections. Deputy Mitchell's amendment is a good proposal and the Minister is effectively accepting it, subject to conditions.
I will put an additional argument in favour of the spirit of this amendment as well as in favour of its precise nature. The Minister of State earlier said that in the fullness of time if Gleeson were to recommend that, such a payment could be deemed to be tax free, could be brought into line with all other such payments for people ending their employment after a period. In every European country, with the exception of the UK, and particularly in those European countries within the Community where democracy was lost for a period, upon its return due consideration was given to ensuring that the rights of members were properly protected. Their right to return to employment externally and their right to remuneration internally were recognised and fully protected because of the necessity to address the kinds of argument that Deputies Shatter and McCormack referred to. As Deputy Dr. Lee put it in his diagnosis of the first seventy years of independence here, the influence of the British Treasury in the culture and ethos of the Department of Finance has wound its way through, not for the first time, but consistently in their treatment of the way the Houses of the Oireachtas function. Indeed, in some European countries this would not have been a matter for the Department of Finance. We would have control of our budget and of our Vote. That is another reason for accepting this amendment.
I urge the Minister to accept the suggestion made. I know he is in a lonely position. The flow of traffic in and out of the door to the Minister's left is a testimony to the loneliness of his position and to the urgency with which he is seeking company and advice. I trust the Minister will listen to the advice coming from this side of the House where he has numerous friends.
(Interruptions.)
A chance to make more.
I hope the Minister will consider accepting the amendment with the support of his very senior and mature colleagues on his side who, in the privacy of the parliamentary room, will give him the necessary cover if in due course such is required. If at the end of the day arguments outside this House prevail he may return from the Seanad with the amendment.
I am not too concerned about the traffic in and out of the door but I will bring practical reality to this debate. I am one of the Deputies some of the senior Fianna Fáil Deputies referred to, who came into the House two and a half years ago. I was a livestock auctioneer for a number of marts two and a half years ago and I gave up my job when elected to this House. I was privileged, glad and proud to do that and I am proud to represent my constituency in the Dáil. I have four children in second level education. I said goodbye to my job when I came here. The week after I left the marts, the person who replaced me was working in all the places I worked. I do not have any other job. I do not complain about that. To spend 90 minutes debating whether or not severance pay for the like of me or anybody else should be tax free is ridiculous. I was 22 years in the marts before I was elected to the Dáil. I spent ten years building up the business but if I or any other Deputies lose our seats at the next General Election, perhaps due to the revision of the constituencies, we will be offered three months' redundancy pay which is taxable. I do not give a damn whether or not it is taxable. I will not qualify for pension because I am only two-and-a-half years in the House, but three months' severance is an insult. We have spent 90 minutes deciding whether or not it should be taxable.
The Cabinet adopted the proposals of the Gleeson Commission. The Progressive Democrats' Minister for my constituency, Deputy Molloy, spent ten minutes patting himself on the back and beating his chest about what the Progressive Democrats have done in successfully introducing this legislation but neither he nor the Cabinet will be affected by this Bill because it only deals with the pension entitlements of the next Government. I cannot understand the relevance of this Bill to Members with my service. I do not care whether or not the severance is taxable. I am more interested in Deputy Andrews' proposal that there should be 18 months severance pay. It took me ten years to build up the position I held in business before I was elected to the House. It would take three to five years more in a very competitive business to get back into the business, not to talk of building up to the position I had reached. If we have not the respect for ourselves which would make us support the Bill we are worth nothing and we are not worthy to be returned to this Chamber. I am not ashamed to fight for my rights and other Members should not be.
Earlier I made a brief contribution on this amendment in the course of which I asked the Minister of State a direct question which he subsequently answered by confirming that severance pay payable to senior civil servants is non-taxable.
Lump sum payments.
As I said, I am not familiar with this territory; we can call it whatever we want — severance pay or lump sum. As other Deputies have said, after an hour and a half, I think we know what we are talking about, even if we have not got the names right. If it is non-taxable the same should apply in the case of Members of this House. For this reason I fully support the amendment proposed by Deputy Mitchell.
My contribution was brief for another reason, that this Bill involves far more than this simple issue. During the course of the debate on Committee Stage we have had one substantial discussion on one amendment. I withdrew an earlier amendment when I realised no progress was going to be made, but during the course of the debate on Second Stage and Committee Stage we have constantly talked about the perception among people outside the House and the way in which we will be perceived because of the way in which we have addressed this legislation. I have to say that we have done more harm in the last hour and a half in relation to the way in which people outside will perceive us having regard to the progress made on this Bill. They will realise that, apart from five or ten minutes, the entire debate on Committee Stage was taken up in trying to convince the Minister of State that we should be treated no differently from senior civil servants in regard to the taxing of severance pay or lump sum payments.
What is wrong with that?
I will tell the Deputy what is wrong with it. This Bill involves far more substantial issues which we will not now be allowed to address on Committee Stage. I want to register my protest at the way in which the debate on this Bill has been guillotined and at the fact that so little time has been made available to the House to debate the more substantial issues such as those dealt with by Deputy Andrews and others. These include the scale of the severance pay payable to Deputies, or more particularly, the enhanced conditions available to Ministers, and the question of whether sitting Members of this House should be entitled to a pension irrespective of the amount of time they have spent in office, age or other considerations. We are not prepared to address those issues. The Minister of State was not prepared to listen to the reasonable arguments advanced, and I regret to say that we will have drawn down criticism on our heads, deservedly so, over the way in which the debate has been conducted.
It is not our fault that time has not been made available.
Let me clear up one or two misconceptions. I stress we are not debating the question of whether three months severance pay should be taxable or not.
The Minister of State could have fooled me.
If an amendment was tabled we could debate that.
It will be open——
The question will be put in about five minutes time. Let us hear the Minister of State out without interruption.
——to the review body under the terms of the Bill to recommend, for example, a longer period. I have already agreed with Deputy Andrews that three months was a very short and paltry period of time. Second, the review body also have the option of deciding in their wisdom that it should not be a staged payment but rather a lump sum. I want to stress that I gave Deputy Mitchell an undertaking that the matter will be reconsidered between now and the time the Bill is debated in the Seanad. I said I would request the Minister for Finance to read the debate and note what Members have had to say tonight. That is the best I can do and is the only offer I can make at this stage.
May I ask the Minister of State if he would pay me the courtesy of coming back to me with his decision before he goes to Seanad Éireann?
I will request the Minister for Finance to consider that.
How stands the amendment?
I will not press the amendment in view of the undertaking given by the Minister of State.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
Is section 4 agreed?
On a point of order, I have an amendment tabled to section 4.
Amendment No. 3 seems to be out of order.
I accept that amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy De Rossa on the list which has been circulated could be in trouble but amendment No. 3 on the composite list——
Amendment No. 3 has been ruled out of order as it would impose a potential charge on the people. The amendment seeks to abolish a tax allowance in respect of a second residence. The abolition of a tax relief is an obvious charge on the people. I am sure this decision has been communicated to the Deputy.
I confirm that I got a letter from your office, a Cheann Comhairle, but I believed it referred to another amendment, not this one. I am at a loss to understand how a proposal to do away with the dual abode allowance which is payable to Ministers could involve a charge on the Exchequer.
It is a charge on the people.
I am bound by your rulling——
That is quite clear, Deputy. The Deputy may Comment on his amendment if he wishes to do so.
Deputy McCreevy indicated earlier that the dual abode allowance already exists. May I ask the Minister of State, therefore, why it is being introduced in statutory form in this Bill? I would like to know why this allowance is being put on a statutory basis. Why should a Minister or Minister of State be allowed claim allowances in respect of a second house within the city limits? If they can do so, should backbench Deputies from constituencies outside the city not be entitled to the same right or all workers for that matter? Why should Ministers and Ministers of State be singled out and why is it being introduced in a statutory form if it exists already?
The dual abode allowance is given to certain Ministers and Ministers of State under an administrative practice derived from rule 3 of the rules relating to deductions for employment expenses. The other tax deductions for expenses granted to Members of the Oireachtas, which are being replaced in the Bill by a tax-free expenses payment, are also given by reference to that rule. However, the terms of that rule are quite restrictive and it has not always been clear that Members of the Oireachtas are in strictness entitled to deductions in respect of some of the expenses allowed to them or to the full amount allowed. The main difficulty has been in determining the primary function of Deputies, that is, whether it is as legislators or as constituency representatives. In considering the terms of remuneration of Members of the Oireachtas the review body have confirmed the practice of granting the dual abode allowance to Ministers representing country constituencies. In view of that it has been considered appropriate to put their entitlement to the allowance beyond doubt by putting it on a statutory basis.
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister of State but the time has come to put the question.
Dr. G. FitzGerald
On a point of order, may I ask the Minister, in view of the fact that the debate is concluding and amendments are being put, whether he is taking on board amendments Nos. 13 and 14 with a view to implementing them?
My understanding of the position is that amendments Nos. 13 and 14 have been ruled out of order.
Dr. G. FitzGerald
On what basis?
Sorry, I must put the question in accordance with the order of the House of this day. The question is: "That the amendment set down by the Minister for Finance for Committee Stage is hereby made to the Bill, that in respect of each of the sections undisposed of other than section 5, the section or, as appropriate, the section as amended, is hereby agreed to in Committee, that the Title is hereby agree to in Committee and the Bill, as amended, is accordingly reported to the House and, no amendments having been offered to the Bill on Report, that the Bill is hereby passed". Is this motion agreed?
It is not agreed. In protest that the debate has been guillotined and at the inability of Deputies to contribute to it in a meaningful form——
Sorry, the Deputy is being most audacious in interrupting the Chair while a question is being put.
——The Workers' Party are calling a vote.
This is gross disorder, Deputy.
I knew the Chair would facilitate me.
It is gross disorder to challenge the Chair in this fashion when he is putting a question to the House.
I am not challenging the Chair. I am trying to put on the record of the House the reason we are calling a vote.
The Deputy should please desist. I will not tolerate these kinds of interjections.
Will the Members who claim a division please rise?
Deputies De Rossa, McCartan, Byrne, Sherlock, Rabbitte and Mac Giolla rose.
As fewer than ten Deputies have risen, I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 59 the names of the Deputies who have risen will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.