Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)

The Minister's family has been a long time in politics. There are many widows who served as unpaid secretaries to their husbands, long before there were secretaries in this House. They answered telephone calls late into the night and acted as secretaries at home and got no income. Is a widow on a maximum pension of €25,000 well paid? Are we serious about attracting people into giving their lives to full-time politics or will we revert to the days of part-time politicians? The latter will occur.

I am in receipt of a ministerial salary. If the legislation says I do not have it, then I do not have it, but let us be frank and honest about why it was introduced. Many people, although not necessarily Fianna Fáil Members, served as Front Bench spokespersons in the House for many years, including myself. A Front Bench spokesperson does not get any extra pay. The original idea was that a Minister who went into opposition would, more than likely, be a Front Bench spokesperson and should get an income to supplement his or her salary. Ministerial pensions derived from this idea, but there is still no extra remuneration for a Front Bench spokesperson whose job is to produce policy, review legislation, travel the country and meet various groups. Spokespersons get the same salaries as backbenchers. This matter has never been considered fully because we have never had the guts to hold a proper debate. We run away because the media starts writing.

In 1993, we decided that serving Members would get only 50% of their ministerial pensions if they became Ministers after 1993. This fact has never been made clear in the media. Other speakers referred to the constitutionality of abolishing pensions. It is my understanding that, once one has paid for something and worked under certain conditions, removing anything is difficult. It is not being made clear that people contributed towards their ministerial pensions. It is not the fault of the Deputies or the Minister that the contribution level may not be sufficient, but a deduction was made for the pension on certain conditions. For this reason, the 1993 changes were implemented in respect of new Ministers who entered into their positions on the clear understanding of these conditions of employment, namely, a 50% pension, despite a similar deduction being made.

Let us be clear about the facts. It is time for an overall review of the role of the public representative, be he or she full-time or part-time. For example, is a Front Bench spokesperson in a senior and responsible position to get the same salary as someone who has been elected for only one month? I accept that whatever must be, must be, but let us consider the future, what type of people will be attracted into politics and whether they will hold full-time positions.

Let us also remember that politics is like no other job or profession, as there is no guarantee of employment. One is not even guaranteed a full term. It could be one year, five years or, as occurred in the 1981-82 period when there were three elections, three months. There is no guarantee of continuity. Will we ask people to give up their positions in life to enter the Houses as full politicians without paying them? Will we revert to a stage where people will be tempted to take inducements? Let us bring everything into the open. As revealed recently, people in Britain did not have the guts to make the necessary changes and pay proper salaries. Instead, on a nod and a wink, people filled in forms to claim, for example, second home allowances worth €24,000 to which no one was supposed to pay any attention. Consequently, confidence in the public system has collapsed. I do not want a similar situation to obtain in this State. People should be paid.

A previous speaker stated that, when we get expenses, they should be published. People should not need to make freedom of information applications. I can stand over any of my claims for expenses. Let the publication of expenses be automatic. Let people know for what they are voting, namely, what their representatives will get and what conditions of employment they will have. Let people wishing to stand know those conditions as well.

A mistake has been made in changing the ordinary pension conditions for Deputies. As and from the last election, new Members will not qualify for pensions until they are 65 years of age. This is daft. If someone becomes a Deputy at 30 or 32 years of age, spends 25 years in the House, fights four or five elections and is unfortunate enough to lose his or her seat or believes he or she has fulfilled a purpose and leaves, he or she will get nothing until reaching the age of 65 years. This is madness.

See this speech in context