Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

I understand that. However, does the Minister not see that, from the Dáil's point of view, the Minister is allowing a maximum of 30 minutes for Committee Stage amendments before Report and Final Stages? I spent hours drafting pages of amendments, as did Deputy McDonald and others in her party, but we are not given an opportunity to discuss them. The Minister is now saying he has more amendments but that he will bring them to the Seanad tomorrow or next week, and that he will then have to come back here again the following week. Why does he not just take his time and do it all here tonight or tomorrow, and then go to the Seanad and be finished? He is taking it off because he does not have his work done.

While I welcome what the Minister proposes to do, he should have taken more time. We would have given an hour tomorrow for this debate. I do not know why he is not allowing our amendments to be properly discussed. The Minister's final remark was that he looked forward to considering the amendments. It will be quickest consideration of amendments ever because, if a vote is called, there will be no further time to discuss any of the subsequent amendments.

The Minister knows the point I am making. Although he will make amendments later in the Seanad, this is the House in which he is introducing the legislation. There is no need for this guillotine, and it is very important we say that.

We support the legislation as published by the Minister. The people spoke in a referendum when 79% wanted the constitutional amendment to allow a reduction in pay for serving judges. The legislation is before us, and we appreciate it and agree wholeheartedly with the Minister on it.

The Bill puts into statutory effect the reductions in the salary of the Taoiseach, which were decided upon the Government assuming office. I compliment the Taoiseach, who reduced his salary to €200,000, which I support, it having been at a much higher figure despite our having reduced it by €90,000 previously as a result of last year's budget. Ministers, Deputy Howlin included, also agreed at the first Cabinet meeting on taking office last March on a reduced figure for Ministers, which we support. This was done voluntarily up to now and the Minister is giving it statutory effect in the Bill to ensure it has the force of law.

The Bill also makes specific provision for the salary of the chairman of An Bord Pleanála because it was connected to that of a senior judge, and the Minister states this salary will be decided in future by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. While I welcome this, the Minister, Deputy Howlin, should have included a cap of €200,000. Although he might claim a future Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government will not pay more than that, there is nothing in the legislation which states that. Similarly, the salary of the Ombudsman is set relative to judges' pay at present and, given this is being changed, that linkage is being removed for the next Ombudsman and the salary will be decided by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. Again, however, a cap is not included and that figure could be higher, although I hope it will not be. In any case, a cap could easily have been included in the legislation.

The Bill is good in so far as it goes. I look on it as a step in the right direction, although I am surprised the Minister did not take a bigger step. The Minister singled out certain groups of people on the public payroll in order to change their salaries under this Bill, which we support. However, what about all of those who are still being omitted? The Minister should have inserted sections into the Bill to set a cap of €250,000 for current chief executives of semi-State companies and in regard to public services. The Minister will say that some in the semi-States have taken a reduction but that is only a voluntary, not a statutory waiver. Allowing for this, having taken their voluntary waivers, the chief executive of the ESB is still on a basic salary of €400,000, the chief executive of An Post is still on a salary of €328,100 and the chief executive of the Dublin Airport Authority is still on a salary of €297,000. We have listed all the semi-State companies that should be included in this statutory cap of €250,000. While the Minister will say this will apply to future incumbents and that he cannot make it apply to current incumbents, he is applying it to current judges, the current Taoiseach and current Ministers, and he is also making specific changes for the chairperson of An Bord Pleanála as well as inserting a special section in the legislation for the Ombudsman. He could have included the semi-State sector in a similar section.

We might not get time to discuss some of the amendments tonight. When the Minister comes back from the Seanad with his amendments, I ask that he would allow a debate without a guillotine. We are not unreasonable people, Deputy McDonald and I, and we are entitled to have the time to say what we want to say. The Minister could have given us an extra hour tonight. There is no great difference between 10.30 p.m. and 11.30 p.m. and the guillotine was not necessary. We would not have abused the situation and there would have been no need for this debate or for the vote earlier today.

I want to alert the Minister to the fact I have included other organisations which are also in State ownership and should also have a €250,000 cap in addition to those semi-State organisations I have listed. I begin with the chief executive of Anglo Irish Bank, which has changed its name to the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, and the new chief executive of Allied Irish Banks, who has just been appointed. I watched the former AIB executive chairman at the finance committee during the course of the summer. For every question we asked him in regard to where AIB was going as a bank, he had to defer to the Minister for Finance. While I understand this as it is a 99% State-owned company and Anglo Irish Bank is 100% State-owned, and I understand both have technically independent boards, the boards and the chief executives are in fact subservient to the senior people in the Department of Finance. When the Minister for Finance and the Secretary General of the Department of Finance are paid no more than €200,000, it is absurd that the people who report in to them to clear policy issues are on a higher salary. I am sure the Minister sees the logic of what I am saying.

The Minister will agree with me in regard to another organisation I have included for a maximum salary cap of €250,000, namely, our friends in the National Treasury Management Agency. The last time we discussed this in the House, the Minister was able to elucidate some information in regard to salaries but he and all previous Ministers, the Committee of Public Accounts and all other arms of the State have not been able to extract from that organisation what it is paying its chief executive. Let us not discuss it any further; let us simply legislate for it and that will sort out the matter. They can have all the secrets they like about their salary rates once they are under the cap set in this House. We believe some of these people are on €500,000 and €600,000 per annum and, I understand, the former chief executive, who was a good man in his job and a very competent individual, had a salary which approached €1 million in one year when all the various bonuses were added in. In these straitened times, that is very hard to justify.

The Minister will be here next Monday justifying some severe expenditure cuts. I do not know how his colleagues in the Labour Party in particular will come to the House tonight and reject an amendment to put a cap on the chief executives of the semi-States and then come in here next week and support the Minister in a budget which will inevitably include some severe cuts which hurt people at the bottom end. I ask the Labour Party to be consistent and the way to do that is to vote for this amendment. I believe every Member of the House would agree with a cap on the salary of a chief executive of a semi-State company and of every public servant at the figures proposed. Deputy McDonald proposes a lower figure but, be that as it may, there should be a cap of some description. It would be a good day's work for the Oireachtas if we went down that particular route.

I wish to refer to one group of approximately 15 individuals, namely, the Secretaries General. I cannot understand why they are not included in this statutory cap of €200,000. Again, while they have taken a voluntary waiver so they are under the €200,000 figure on a voluntary basis, the Minister should put this on a statutory basis. He might clarify the following point. Their official salary is probably somewhere above €200,000 and their future pensions will be calculated on the basis of that figure, which is their statutory legal salary. I believe they have got around the Minister to ensure they were not included under this legislation. They should be included under the cap. It would not affect them now, because they have taken a voluntary waiver, and it would not affect future personnel because that has been covered as well.

The logic of what the Minister is doing in putting a cap on the top pensions, which he announced a few minutes ago that he will introduce in the Seanad and which we welcome, is to facilitate the top paid public servants in Ireland drawing a pension based on a salary that is higher than the actual salary they receive as a result of the waiver they are currently applying. There is an inconsistency there. The Minister should provide measures to cap the salary on which their pension is based. They have taken the voluntary waiver. Ministers and the Taoiseach took the voluntary waiver, and the Minister is now giving that statutory effect. The Secretaries General took the voluntary waver but that will not have statutory effect.

See this speech in context