Amendment No. 1 in the name of Senator Joe Doyle is out of order as it imposes a charge on the Exchequer.
Ministerial, Parliamentary, Judicial Offices and Oireachtas Members (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 2001: Committee and Remaining Stages.
Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
I am disappointed that my amendment has been ruled out of order, and have no choice but to accept the ruling of the Chair. The purpose of the amendment was to provide the same facility for the Leader of the Opposition as for the Leader of the House. In view of the fact that it has been ruled out of order due to its charge on the Exchequer, can I ask if this matter will be one of the first to be brought to the Oireachtas Commission when it is established?
I will not disregard the intervention of the Chair as it is a general rule that anything that would impose a charge on the Exchequer cannot be introduced by way of amendment from the Opposition. Only the Minister for Finance can make such an amendment. There might be a slight misunderstanding as to the phrasing of the section of my speech dealing with this matter may not have helped. Senator Doyle's amendment would have meant that the leader of the Opposition in the Seanad would be paid a salary equivalent to that of the vice-chair of a committee, but he already receives an allowance of equivalent amount. The provisions in the Bill mean that the Leader of the House will not receive one penny of back pay, although his allowance has been backdated to 7 July 1997. I have simply changed the system in order that the Leader's allowance can be counted for pension purposes from the 1997 date.
Although Senators might think the Leader of the House is to be given a great amount of pay, I am legislating for him to be seen as an office holder in order that the amount he would have been given since 1997 becomes eligible for consideration for pension purposes. Senator Doyle and others may argue that if such a provision is made for the Leader of the House, it should be done for the Leader of the Opposition in the Seanad. This would not be worthwhile, however, as the leader of the Opposition in the Seanad already receives the amount that Senator Doyle's amendment would have provided. He is simply not becoming an office holder, which would have given him a different rate of accruing for pension purposes. The Leader's current salary counts for pension purposes in the same manner as any Deputy or Senator's salary, but he will not qualify for an office holder's pension until the Bill has been enacted.
I understand the thinking behind the amendment, but Senator Doyle can rest assured that the Leader of the House is not being given any extra money. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes, my officials will be happy to address this matter in greater detail.
I want to make a point about the salaries of MEPs, Deputies and Senators. I ask the Chair to inform me when that section arises. I refer to the transfer of service, in Part 10 of the Bill, between sections 45 and 59.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator can discuss the matter when we reach the relevant sections, or he can wait until the end of Committee Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 8 to 45, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 46.
Question proposed: "That section 46 stand part of the Bill."
When a Member of this House is elected to the Dáil, he or she can buy up his or her years of service as a Senator to the level of a Dáil pension. Under the legislation, if one is a Member of either House and goes on to become an MEP, can one buy back years of service as a Member of the Houses?
I will clarify this issue later but, as I understand it, an MEP is paid at the same rate as a Dáil Member and, therefore, one's service as an MEP is added to one's Oireachtas service. As the salary is the same, the rate of accrual is the same.
If one is a Senator and then becomes a Member of the Dáil, one can buy back one's years of service in the Seanad to equate to the level of the Dáil pension. If one becomes an MEP, having served as a Member of either House, is it possible to buy up years of service to equate to the MEP pension level because the MEP's salary could be higher in future?
It probably will be higher. Oireachtas service is automatically added to the MEP scheme. The scenario envisaged by the Senator is based on a common rate of salary for all MEPs throughout Europe. If so, it would be higher than the salary of a Dáil Member. If that was the case—
The same employer is involved, the Department of Finance.
A common rate of salary for MEPs has been promoted around Europe on occasion. Two years ago it looked as if agreement had been reached but that was blown away because of some difficulties. I am not sure I have the answer to that question but I will check. If there is a change, we will examine it because the rate of pay would be different and, therefore, aggregates would have to be applied. I understand the question but do not know the answer.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 47 to 60, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I missed section 33. The Minister said he would reply to issues raised. The section deals with Oireachtas post. Will he clarify Members' entitlements regarding post?
As chairman of the Seanad Committee on Members' Interests, I am aware of the various concerns expressed during the years regarding all the difficulties experienced by Members. As a number of Senators said, the House only sat one day a week many years ago when a Member's salary was 75% of the salary of a Dáil Member. In 1961 a Deputy was paid £1,000 annually while a Senator received £750. Nowadays the House sits three or four days a week. All the changes made up to now have been greatly appreciated and it is hoped our salaries will reach 75% or 80% of the salary of Dáil Members in years to come.
The Minister has done a great deal for the well-being of Oireachtas Members who have given years of service. I record our appreciation for what he has done for us in order that our families can survive after we are gone. Nobody has ever become wealthy as a result of being a Member of the Oireachtas, as the Minister said, but Members will be able to maintain a standard of living to which they have been accustomed prior to election to the Oireachtas.
In response to Senator Doyle, the removal of the "parliamentary duties" reference means that the freepost envelopes can be used by Members for any purpose they decide.
I thank Senator Cassidy for his kind remarks. I hope we will have another shot at making changes suggested by Members. A number of regulations will be withdrawn on foot of this legislation and some other changes have been made by regulation which are not mentioned in it. I hope Members will be pleased. I thank them for their co-operation.
I thank the Minister. He is not a Member long enough to remember the three elections we had in the early 1980s.
I remember them well.
Not alone were Members overdrawn, they were almost bankrupt. Another Minister as brave as Deputy McCreevy, the late John Boland, decided to give Members a 19% increase in salary at the time. He certainly could not afford it but it was granted and all hell broke loose, even in our party. I recall a young radical in my party, who is close to the Leas-Chathaoirleach, getting up at a party meeting and berating the Taoiseach and me for accepting the increase. Two days later I received a letter from him asking for a subscription to a race night but the best part was that one could name the race one sponsored. I put the cheque in the post immediately and named the race "The 19% Handicap".
I thank the Minister and the Leader, who through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, has endeavoured to seek proper remuneration for Members during this Seanad. The Minister will address the secretarial issue in good time. He was always a man to tackle problems and I am sure he will address it. Members are not paid during the period that elapses between the date an election is called and the first sitting of the next Dáil.
That is not correct. A change was made many years ago, possibly by the former Minister, John Boland. When I first became a Member, one was not paid from the day the Dáil dissolved until the day one was elected or re-elected. That problem was overcome by giving a Member a lump sum equivalent to the salary a Member would have received.
One eighteenth of one's annual salary.
Once the Dáil dissolves, a Member is not representing anybody. I was not paid during the first four election campaigns I ran. During the 1980s the position was changed and Members received an allowance which equated to the salary one would have received during the campaign. I was not around for the three elections in the early 1980s.
Question put and agreed to.