Is amendment No. a1 deemed to be out of order?
Private Members' Business. - Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) (Amendment) Bill, 1993: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
The amendment is deemed out of order as it extends the provisions of section 2 to allow for payment of an allowance to the Leas-Chathaoirleach of Seanad Éireann. This amendment involves a potential charge on the Revenue and must be adjudged out of order. However, the Deputy may comment on it.
It should be noted that the Leas-Chathaoirleach of the Seanad is an office holder of one of the Houses of the Oireachtas. His office is a constitutional one which has not been recognised in this Bill. The holder of that office is a very busy person and an examination of the number of meetings of the Seanad and the number of times the Leas-Chathaoirleach must be in possession of the Chair and, therefore, in control of the Seanad indicates clearly that he is certainly as busy, if not busier, than many chairpersons of committees.
I understand that the allowance for the office of Leas-Chathaoirleach has not been reviewed since 1938 when it stood at £750 — it is of a higher order than that now. I also understand that this was not referred to specifically in the independent report which looked at these allowances. Although it might not be possible to have it dealt with now, it should be noted and included in any future re-examination of these allowances.
It should also be borne in mind that in the next section of this Bill under subsection (2) it is possible to give retrospective effect to payments. In that context the upgrading of the allowance paid to the Leas-Chathaoirleach of the Seanad to the same level as that of chairpersons of committees could be attended to. The amount of remuneration necessary to bring it up to that level is small and, given the work carried out by the Leas-Chathaoirleach of the Seanad, I would have no hesitation in recommending to the Government Whip that it be attended to.
I have no difficulty with what Deputy Kenny says about this. The Leas-Chathaoirleach of the Seanad is currently paid an annual sum by way of salary in respect of the duties pertaining to his office. I accept he has onerous duties but it is not necessary to include a provision in legislation because the amount he is currently receiving may be varied under existing legislation. I take the point made by the Deputy and perhaps in any future review of remuneration such as the Gleeson report a submission may be made in this regard.
Amendment No. a1 not moved.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, subsection (3), line 13, after "Oireachtas" to insert "and the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendment No. 2a in the name of Deputy Kenny is out of order.
I am very sorry to hear that. Perhaps I will be allowed to comment on it. The point was made to me by a number of people that if we accept the findings of the Gleeson report in respect of the various allowances to be paid arising from officerships and responsibilities held by people, payment should be made from the date of publication of that report. I have spoken to the Minister about this matter and it is the Government's intention that payment be made from 12 January 1993 when the new Dáil committees were formed. The Minister made his point clearly and obviously there is no point in my pursuing the matter further. The reason I put down this amendment was to seek, for those who held chairmanships of existing Dáil committees, remuneration from the date of publication of the Gleeson report, which recommended that payment be made to these people. If the Government intends to make payment only from 12 January 1993 there is no point in my trying to make it retrospective to 30 January 1992.
While I have sympathy with the intent of this amendment, it would be unusual to make the provision retrospective to a period that related to a previous Dáil — payment will be made from the date of formation of the current Dáil, 12 January 1993 — and on that basis the Government cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 2a not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill".
In the Minister's Second Stage speech before Christmas he said that the Bill deals with the removal of the statutory provision applicable only to Members of the Oireachtas who reside within ten miles of Leinster House which restricts the payment of travelling allowances to such Members to days on which they attend sittings of the relevant House or meetings of House committees. Since many deletions have been made from the Bill, is this provision being deleted from section 4 or is it covered elsewhere in the Bill?
It is not covered in the Bill but it will be dealt with by way of regulation.
Will such regulation be introduced as soon as the Bill is enacted?
I cannot say definitely, but usually there is an interval. It will be done as quickly as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 5 and 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 be deleted."
Perhaps we could discuss together the proposal to delete sections 7, 8 and 9, all of which deal with the matter of secretarial assistants.
Acting Chairman
The questions must be put separately.
I understand that but I wish to address the sections together because they are all relevant to secretarial assistants. When the Bill was initially introduced it was intended that the position of secretarial assistants to Members of the House would be regularised and legalised because of the court case. Discussion of the Bill was stopped on Second Stage to allow negotiations and it was decided, following discussion with various people in the House, to remove the three sections relating to secretarial assistants. That is the reason for the deletion of sections 7, 8 and 9.
I am a little surprised at the way the Minister made this proposal. I can think of very few cases where it was proposed to regularise the position of people in the way it was proposed to regularise the position of secretarial assistants in this Bill. The Minister glossed over many points in this issue. Pressure in this Chamber from a number of Deputies and resolute action by a trade union was required to get us to the stage where these iniquitous sections will be removed.
What was proposed by way of regularising the position of secretarial assistants to Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas was nothing less than their abandonment to chance. It was proposed that any small element of job security they might have would be dispensed with, and I find that unacceptable. The fact that the Government proposed these changes is eloquent comment on its views on equality and the position of women working in positions such as these.
In the original Bill it was proposed to make secretarial assistants no more than appendages of the Members of this and the other House. They were to be totally dependent on Members and their fate dependent not only on the fate of Members, which is the case to some extent, but on their whims. For people who have given valuable service in very difficult circumstances, that was a most insulting proposal. It should never have been proposed by anybody let alone by the Fianna Fáil Party and least of all by the Labour Party. I am glad these provisions are being taken out of the Bill but I am concerned about what might be put in their place.
I feel strongly about this matter because in a previous incarnation, before my elevation, or re-elevation to the back-benches I spent some time trying to get clarity on the position of secretarial assistants, which was difficult. I hope the Minister and his advisers will not come back and propose a system that is based on, or comparable with, a system in any other parliament. That is not good enough. We are not dealing with another parliament, we are dealing with the Oireachtas and with people who perform very valuable work. It is not good enough to model ourselves on parliaments where they seem to do these things more conveniently or where the employment climate is less difficult.
On 10 May I tabled questions to the Minister for Finance asking him to comment on the continuing uncertainty about the position of secretarial assistants at that time and when his officials would be dealing with the matter. In reply, the Minister made a number of very revealing remarks. He said the Bill, including these offending sections, was drafted "to ensure that such employment"— that is the employment of secretarial assistants —"was on a constitutionally unimpeachable basis and to eliminate misunderstandings of the status of such staff which had come to light during High Court proceedings". I would hate that anybody should worry about the constitutional unimpeachability of my status and remove misunderstanding by simply casting me adrift, as the Bill had proposed to do to secretarial assistants. We could all do without that kind of concern. I hope the Minister and his advisers will take a different view of how they make the status of secretarial assistants "constitutionally unimpeachable" in the future because this does not mean to me that they have to be left entirely at the mercy of the electoral fortunes of Members of either House or of the passing whims of Members. That is not the way to employ people. This is a very difficult area with which to deal. Unless we change matters substantially there will be, until further notice, 166 Members in this House and we would need to pass a referendum, if one is required, or the necessary legislation, to change that number. There will continue to be the constitutionally prescribed number of Members of Seanad Éireann. The balance between parties changes quite a bit and I have the great ambition of ensuring the balance changes in favour of my party in the future, but that is another day's work.
A year's work.
That creates problems but we should not exacerbate them in the way that sections of this misbegotten Bill, as initiated, intended to do. To treat the payment of secretarial assistants as an allowance to Members of this House puts the assistants in the category of being mere extensions. As it were, of Members as well as making Members responsible for employing staff. The last thing I want to do, Sir, and the last thing my constituents would expect me to do, is to spend time worrying about whether my secretary's P35 is in order and making the proper returns of PAYE and PRSI and dealing with leave and other matters that inevitably go with employing somebody. I know there are Members who do it, that is their choice, but I have no interest in doing so. It is not what I got elected to do. My secretary is based in Leinster House because that suits my work. I choose not to deal with other matters concerning her employment not because of any difficulty with my secretary, whom I will not embarrass by describing as the best I ever had — she has been with me for the past 11 years — but simply because Members should not have to deal with that. Under the provisions of this Bill it was intended that we would all have to do that whether we liked it or not. Now it is an option but it was intended to take that option away from us.
We should not allow this Bill to be passed in what Deputy O'Donnell described as its gutted form. It has been modified and is now a respectable Bill, but we should not let it pass without marking the occasion in a way that puts the Government on notice that we will not put up with what it intended to do in the first place. The Government had better not come back after the summer recess with a Bill that treats this important matter in the same way that it intended before. If it wants "constitutional unimpeachability" it better find some other way that does not interfere with the rights or prejudice the careers of people working in this House. Whatever the difficulties in the courts, and I have not seen any complete explanation of all that, another way had better be found other than putting secretarial assistants on the hazard as had been proposed.
When a Bill is more or less agreed it is a tradition to be complimentary to the Government and it would be churlish of me not to say that I am delighted, in that time-honoured phrase, that even at the eleventh hour the Government has chosen to mend its hand. It would be wrong, however to let this occasion pass without saying that the Government should be thoroughly ashamed of itself for ever having proposed such a cockamamie way of dealing with this question in the first place. I hope we have seen the last of this nonsense and that when it comes back with a scheme to deal with the undoubted problem that exists, it will be a fair, just and equitable scheme that does not treat people in the insulting way this Bill started out to do.
Sections 7 to 9, inclusive, caused a great deal of controvesy earlier when the Bill was initially introduced. I have no intention of making a Second Stage speech but there has been a great deal of movement towards the protection of rights and the status and security of the existing secretarial staff in Leinster House. A number of meetings have taken place between the Whips together with union and staff representatives. As the sections have been removed it would be everyone's intention — and certainly that of my party — to ensure that the good and loyal staff who have given excellent service are looked after so that they have no fears of being cast on the unemployment heap.
This Bill is proceeding with the agreement of the Whips on the basis that the relevant sections are being removed from it and I hope when we next come to deal with it, it will be effective and fair. I hope we will deal with it in the next session. A cloud hangs over all secretarial assistants and staff which they are anxious to have removed and be secure in their positions. In that context this Bill will go ahead having removed the sections relating to the employment and security of secretarial assistants.
The Labour Party supports the Bill in its new form. We are very pleased that commonsense has prevailed and that those sections will be deleted from the Bill. I regarded this initially as an attempt by the Department of Finance to dump the responsibility for secretaries, and indeed other categories of staff, onto the shoulders of the Members. That might have worked had it not been for the strong opposition on the part of all parties in the Dáil, particularly at back-bench level. Our staff in the Labour Party have separate contracts with SIPTU and individual categories within the staff have different arrangements dating back many years. This is a complex problem and one that must be addressed not just collectively but individually within the parties in the Dáil, including both Government parties. Any resolution that emerges must be with the agreement of the union. I am not sure whether the secretarial assistants of other parties are members of SIPTU or any other trade union but all our staff members are in a trade union. On their behalf I wish to express appreciation to the Minister for the sympathetic way in which he received the recommendations made to him. I am sure he has played a major part in achieving what is before us this evening.
In relation to staff matters, the Department of Finance should not be allowed get away with that type of activity again. It was a most deplorable approach to take to an industrial relations issue involving hard working people in the Houses of the Oireachtas and the men and women who work equally hard in the constituency offices and who were not consulted by anybody on that occasion. A mistake was made; I am glad it has been corrected and I thank the Minister for that.
As someone who vociferously opposed Second Stage of this Bill because of the offending sections, I am glad they have now been deleted. Some action will have to be taken, however, in relation to a change in the contractual relationship which exists at present between the Department of Finance and the secretaries. This matter must be dealt with in a sensitive way and by agreement with the people concerned, our valued secretarial assistants.
I am glad we have been able to proceed with this Bill having deleted the offending sections. The manner in which the Bill was introduced constituted a unilateral severance of the contractual relationship between the Department of Finance and the secretaries. The approach taken to this issue constituted part of the offence in addition to the substance of the offence. Since then there has been a certain loss of trust and confidence on the part of the secretaries because they feel they are under threat. There are no grounds for many of their fears but it is important for them to know that the Whips of all the political parties are on their side in this matter. We have been at pains to stress that and avoid a situation where the secretarial assistants regard us as the aggressors in this matter. We as individual Members and collectively as the Whips representing our individual parties care deeply about the economical and emotional welfare of these women who work for us so loyally. The secretaries of this House need have no fear because we are batting for them on this matter and if it comes to the point where an agreement has to be reached, we will negotiate the best type of agreement which will not diminish their status or their entitlements. My party in particular would not stand over any agreement which would allow for a diminishing of those entitlements. Contracts may be entered into in the future and that will be a separate category but the status of those secretaries currently on the payroll will be maintained.
While we are addressing this problem we should avail of the opportunity to examine the salary scale of secretaries and perhaps revise them upwards. The work carried by the secretaries at all levels, whether they are working for Members of the Front Bench, the back-benches or in the Whips office, and are extremely busy, must be examined. I have never experienced such a workload as that undertaken by the secretaries in this House. Their hours are long and they are very giving of their time and energy.
I am glad we have proceeded with the remainder of the Bill. In many ways we have cherry-picked the Bill and removed sections which would not have allowed the committees to work effectively, which is important. The problem has not disappeared, however, in relation to the contractual relationship between Members and their secretarial assistants. Many Members are very resistant to change and, as Deputy Dukes said, many of them do not want to become employers. They do not want the administrative hassle and the responsibility of being an employer. In making these changes we must consult with each Member of the House in relation to any new legislation which will redefine the contractual relationship which exists between secretaries and the Department of Finance or, as might well be the case in the future, between secretaries and individual Deputies. This legislation represents a whole new horizon in terms of the industrial relations landscape of this House and we must get it right. The rights of these employees that are in place now must not be diminished in any way.
I look forward to further negotiations by the Whips but this matter should not be left to them because the issue is broader than the cosy relationship with the Whips. Other Deputies, such as Deputy Dukes, must be given an opportunity to make a contribution and I am sure other Members have strong views on championing the rights of secretaries. They may wish to champion their own rights also by not being burdened with the responsibility of being full-time employees. I hope the current mediation is progressing and that in due course an arrangement will be proposed with which we can all agree and which will lead to a more harmonious relationship than is evident at the moment because of uncertainty. Many of the women are experiencing a sense of gloom and with the prospect of an election in the next 18 months or two years, they are wondering what will happen to them at that time if they do not have security of tenure and if their rights and entitlements are unclear.
I made my views on this matter clear on Second Stage and I do not see any point in prolonging the debate now by repeating those views. The views I advanced at the time were as a result of discussions I had with secretaries of all parties, at their request, who came to me presumably because of what Deputy Dukes described as a previous incarnation. I put those views on the record of the House at that time but it is important to recall that both parties in Government sponsored this Bill. It did not emerge from the Department of Finance. It is true that when it was finally brought before the House, certain colleagues who sit behind me in the Chamber recovered their trade union credentials and objected to the Bill. As a result progress on the Bill slowed down. It was ill judged, unfortunate and wrong that we should have dealt in the way we did with the status of secretaries and their careers. It is wrong that they should be regarded as appendages of Members of the House. Is the judgment which triggered this available? When we last dealt with the matter there was no written judgment but the Whips would be interested in looking at it if it is available now.
Although we will pass the Bill tonight there is continuing uncertainty about the secretarial staff. I agree with Deputies Dukes, O'Donnell and Kenny that this should not be taken as lessening the need for urgency in clarifying the position as soon as possible in the new session. It would be right if whatever change we make allows us to look at secretaries remuneration. It is all very well for us to praise them but the only praise they are interested in at the end of the day is their weekly pay cheque. It is not commensurate with the work they do. Anyone who praises 100 per cent of the staff unreservedly is a hypocrite. By and large the overwhelming majority of the staff perform work which, of its nature, is above and beyond the call of duty for wage scale which is not commensurate with that duty. It is a bit late in the day to continue admitting it is a bastardised scale which cannot be related directly to any other grade in the public service and which is still on a permanent ad hoc basis. We should take this opportunity to correct that.
It is a complex issue and difficult to tackle. To some extent secretaries are dependent on the Member for whom they work continuing in the House. The modicum of security they enjoy should not be dispensed with in the manner proposed in the Bill originally. We should look at a more reasonable basis for the employment of staff whose contribution is valued by all Members.
I will revert to the origins of the Bill. Most Members are aware of the circumstances which gave rise to the Bill. Advice was given that the scheme in operation was not in accordance with Article 15 of the Constitution which states that the Oireachtas must make provision by law for any facilities that are made available to Members of the House. There was a secretarial scheme in place which was not covered in law. Following the 1992 general election, the secretary of a Member who was defeated in that election took a court case to establish that she was employed by the Houses of the Oireachtas and since the overall number of secretarial assistants had not been reduced her employment should continue. In support of her claim she argued that in the absence of legislation as specified by the Constitution she must be regarded as being on the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The court decided that she and other secretarial assistants were employees of the political parties of individual Deputies. That is all we can go on. The judgment is not available to date but the note taken by the staff of the Chief State Solicitor is available and confirms the position I outlined in my speech on Second Stage.
There is an amendment to delete section 13 (3). Commitments were given to the union at a meeting on 25 November that, although the Bill would be put in place as we were anxious to have the Chairman's allowances and Leader of the House allowances for the Seanad, sections 7, 8 and 9 would not be put in place until agreement was reached with the union. That commitment was sought from the Whips and agreed to by the Minister for Finance. It was not intended to steamroll it through without agreement and discussion. Perhaps it was unwise to tie the two together. I wish to put it clearly on the record that it was never the Government's intention to steamroll it through and cast the secretaries aside who have given such loyal and dedicated support to Deputies.
The secretarial assistants were not satisfied with that and were afraid that if the Bill were passed it would be put in place. That is why we withdrew it. I understood their fear. It was my intention, had the Bill gone to Committee Stage as originally intended, to insert another amendment that, even with the commencement date and so on, sections 7, 8 and 9 could not come into force without an agreement being debated and voted on by Members. The Whips were anxious that the secretarial assistants should not feel they were abandoned.
The reason the Bill was brought in and the sections were inserted was the fear that the position of secretarial assistants was unconstitutional. Deputy Dukes took a particular attitude towards being an employer and having the responsibility of employers and his view was echoed by members of my parliamentary party. There are some Deputies who would not be happy to act as employers of their secretaries. In some cases they would not have the necessary skills and in others they would not want the bother. I can understand why this is the case. Under the Bill as originally drafted, it was possible for parties or individual Deputies to make arrangements so that they would become the employers. This issue must be addressed under whatever new arrangements are put in place.
I wish to refer to salaries. Deputy Rabbitte was honest in his remarks — most secretarial assistants are excellent but some are not. This is the case in every job — some Members are excellent while others are not. I agree that the salary scale is not very attractive for good secretarial assistants; I have no argument with that point. I can only speak from experience and my constituency secretary is not paid half enough. That is an issue for another day. The issue of salaries was addressed by the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission and an independent examination was carried out by agreed assessors some years ago. As a result, the salaries of secretarial assistants were substantially increased. There are pluses in having a salary attached to a Civil Service grade but there are also pluses in not having it attached to a grade: one could gain on the swings but lose on the roundabout.
This issue will not go away and must be addressed. From the contacts I had since last December in endeavouring to reach an agreed position with the secretarial assistants — I was assisted in this by the Law Reform Commission — I am aware that even with the best will in the world the party Whips will not be able to resolve some issues, for example, pension schemes, the way in which secretaries are to be paid and who the paymasters will be. These issues will have to be resolved by the union and the Department of Finance. I think all the Whips experienced difficulties in trying to resolve the problems about pension schemes. We are not competent to deal with this issue which will have to be dealt with at official level. I agree with Deputy O'Donnell that every assistance possible should be offered to the secretarial assistants and the Department so that the matter can be resolved. I will be more than willing to do this.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 8 and 9 deleted.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 be deleted".
This section deals with consequential arrangements for the allowances provided for in sections 7, 8 and 9. Now that those sections are deleted, this arrangement is redundant.
Does the exemption from income tax apply to the previous allowances of the chairpersons of committees?
No, they are taxable.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 7, lines 9 to 13, to delete subsection (3).
This provision was included in the Bill to enable the Government to introduce the provisions in sections 7, 8 and 9 on a date later than the enactment of the Bill; in other words, to enable discussions to take place. This provision is no longer necessary.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments, received for final consideration and passed.