Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I am disappointed that the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, is not here for this debate. Whatever about my personal disappointment, it reflects the fact that the Government's approach is slapdash on the legislation and cavalier in respect of the sums of money involved. Essentially, we are being asked to put through a budget for the Houses of the Oireachtas for the next three years to the tune of €324 million, which works out at €108 million each year. I need not say, certainly, for anyone who might be watching this debate and who watched the budgetary debate over the past number of weeks, that €108 million per annum is substantial funding. At a minimum, Deputy Howlin should have been here. Meaning no disrespect to the Minister of State, Deputy Alex White, the Minister should have been here to present the case and the argument on two fronts: first, to give an account as to why €324 million is required over the next three years and to substantively defend that sum; and second, to explain, as has been previously stated, why we are dealing with this matter at the 11th hour.

Why is it that this matter is put before us just as we are coming to the finishing line of this Dáil session? It strikes me as a sneaky move. It strikes me, rather than have all of the issues around what it costs to run the Oireachtas, including in respect of Deputies, Senators, advisers, upfront and centre in the mainstream debate on budgets and cuts, that the Government somehow wants to deal the heavy blows to the citizens in its cutback packages and increases in charges and then have a separate discussion to hive off the issue of the cost of the Oireachtas and legitimate public issues that arise around the pay of politicians, the allowances enjoyed by them and the issue of political advisers because it does not want those matters to enter into the broad discussion of the budgetary position. Of course, the problem for a Government so minded is that the people are not fools.

The budget introduced by the Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform delivered cruel blows to many sectors across society. In a very mean-spirited way it took €26 million from the carers' respite grant. For the first time ever it taxes maternity benefit. Despite all the pre-election posturing it cut child benefit again. It set aside the PRSI income disallowance and placed an additional burden on low and middle income earners. That budget has been well-analysed by the public at this stage. Then it comes to us and people say, legitimately, that if Labour and Fine Gael are to preach the gospel of austerity and lecture carers, mothers, families and women on the need to cut their cloth according to their measure, if they are going to say to people who are struggling that they have no option but simply to take it on the chin and accept these cutbacks, what are they doing about themselves? That is a very reasonable question and one that is on the lips of the public.

When the Ministers took to their feet and announced the Fine Gael-Labour Government budget, one of the most striking public reactions as people tried to take on board all the different cuts and the increases in charges, was to ask what the politicians were doing about themselves. It was an obvious omission for the Taoiseach not to take a pay cut because he should not be earning €200,000. I doubt if anyone anywhere, including in this House and including the Taoiseach himself, would not concede that €200,000 is excessive. If we are going to have conversations about value for money or bang for one's buck, the public is quite entitled to ask whether they are getting €200,000 worth from this individual. The answer to that is "no". The broader answer is that whoever occupies that office should not be in receipt of a salary of that magnitude. He is not on his own because, equally, the Tánaiste, Ministers and Ministers of State are also overpaid.

A budget that could do so much damage to so many was accompanied by language of fairness on the one hand and, on the other hand, an assertion that the State is insolvent and in dire circumstances. Those were the two pillars of the narrative from Government - fairness and economic crisis. In a spirit of fairness the Government cannot stand over those salaries and in the context of economic crisis, they are obscene. Why were they not cut? We have not had an answer to that from anybody in Government. Ministers get a salary of €170,000 which is ludicrous and needs to be cut.

In that spirit, I submitted amendments to the legislation to do precisely that. The remuneration of the Taoiseach and Ministers should not exceed €100,000 in circumstances of emergency and hardship. A salary of €100,000 is a very fine salary for any individual. There are very many people in the public sector and private sector, which is often pointed to by Members of this House, who would be more than satisfied, indeed delighted, to receive a salary of €100,000. However, my amendment on that matter was set aside because I am told the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission does not set the rates of pay for officeholders, which is, of course, technically correct. That decision rests with Government and when this issue of obscenely high pay for politicians has been put to Government, it has simply given me and others the deaf ear. It is not open to that message. I am very frustrated and angry yet again that when an attempt is made to address this issue of pay, it is simply batted away and set aside.

On the issue of allowances, again my amendment was set aside. I was told the commission does not make those decisions, the Government does. However, the commission is, as the Minister of State, Deputy White, has said, almost the board of the Oireachtas, the administrator, the overseer. Therefore it has an involvement in these matters. My amendment proposed the withdrawal of a number of allowances we have. In a time of economic crisis, there is no justification for Members to get an allowance for a mobile phone. Other allowances proposed for withdrawal were those for the Ceann Comhairle, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle - with no offence to the personalities involved - Chairmen of committees, Vice Chairmen of committees, Leader of the Seanad, Whips and assistant Whips. All of these are additional baubles.

If we are serious about leading from the front, we cannot stand over these. I know I cannot and I believe the same is true for all Members of the House. I accept it has been custom and practice that these have existed in the past, but why can we not say that now in 2012 we will address these matters? They will not in themselves save a sufficient amount of money to set the economy to rights. I am not making that argument and I know that. However, they will give a very considerable and important message to the people we represent that we understand that even smaller sums of money are none the less significant sums of money, particularly from a Government that has let down carers, and vulnerable and struggling families. It is important that Government should not simply offer the rhetoric of fairness but demonstrate clearly that it understands the realities of life by making those types of decisions. I am outlining all this even though all my amendments were set aside.

For the record, I will detail how much would have been saved had my amendments been accepted and voted through. An emergency pay cap for all staff - not politicians - of the Houses of the Oireachtas Service would have saved €198,790. The combined saving from capping pay for the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Ministers at €100,000, capping salaries of Deputies at €75,000 and capping salaries of Senators at €60,000 would be €4.3 million. The withdrawal of the allowances I mentioned would represent a saving of €754,879. I also tabled an amendment on capping the salaries of special advisers to Ministers at the first point of the principal officer scale, which is €81,000. That would realise a saving of €494,481. Of course, the Government had given a commitment to cap the pay of its special advisers, a commitment honoured more in the breach than in the adherence.

Time and again, Ministers paid their special advisers huge salaries, including most ironically and shamefully, the special adviser to the Minister for Social Protection. This is the same Minister who brought forward many of these social welfare cuts that will hurt and damage people so badly.

I had an amendment dealing with the withdrawal of the allowance of €17,000 paid to Ministers of State who attend Cabinet meetings. There are two individuals in that bracket. It would represent a saving of €34,000. I had an overall amendment in respect of pension entitlements for pensions in excess of €60,000. If the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform was here, he would, no doubt, either nod or shake his head or make some gesture because I have had many long and fruitless debates with him on this issue. That would represent a saving of €10 million.

Those may not be earth-shattering sums of money for the Government but they are very significant because they come to almost €17 million. If the Government was minded to make those types of savings, it would allow it to reinstate 950,000 home help hours. The amendments and cuts I have set out are proportionate and moderate and are doable if the Government was so minded. They would not sort out the economic crisis and I do not make that claim but they could offset, for example, the cut to the home help hours. That would be a very worthy and worthwhile thing to do. By taking initiatives such as that, politics, politicians and the Oireachtas would genuinely demonstrate a capacity for and interest in leading from the front. However, this Government has no intention of doing that. My amendments were set aside and I was only informed of it at the very last minute. The Government hides behind the story that the commission does not decide the rates of allowances and pay.

We find ourselves in a pincer movement by Government. On one hand, the Ministers will not take the type of decisions I have described. They have stubbornly refused to cut their pay. The Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Ministers are grossly overpaid by international standards. This is a small State in a so-called bailout programme with almost 15% unemployment. It is a State that is haemorrhaging our best and brightest with emigration levels up where they were in the 1800s. This is the depth of the crisis. No State in those circumstances awards to its Taoiseach a salary of €200,000 per year. It is as simple as that but the Ministers either do not hear or do not want to hear that message so the Government in its Estimates will not take the decision to make the cuts that would be reasonable, proportionate and fair.

We then arrive at this pass where we have the legislation for the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, or the board of management of the Oireachtas to use the Minister's expression, and are asked to nod through €324 million over three years by the same Government that will not take any of the reasonable decisions that citizens would expect them to take. This is deplorable. Perhaps the Minister of State will have more influence with his ministerial and Labour Party colleague, Deputy Howlin, and others to make them see sense.

A headline in one of today's newspapers stated that our budget for the Oireachtas was being sneaked through at the last minute. Not unreasonably, the article reflected on the fact the figures reflected a 2.5% cut to the budget for the three-year cycle. This does not tally well. I am a Deputy on the Opposition benches and one of the people who has argued strongly and sometimes trenchantly against the strategy of this Government and the endless austerity that is damaging the economy and society and for stimulus and investment. I have made and will continue to make that argument. I cannot understand or justify a system which continues to overpay politicians, particularly senior politicians and office holders.

Those on the far side of the House should understand that it is they who argue for cutbacks and savings. They are the people who tell cancer patients they are terribly sorry but the patients must pay €75 or possibly €80 for their outpatient appointments. They are in a Government that knows that in some instances, hospitals have taken on debt collectors to pursue these patients to get the money from them. It is a Government that tells older people it has tripled the prescription charge from 50 cent to €1.50, that they must take it on the chin and if they do not have the money, they will have to find it somewhere. It is a Government that tells families, many of them working families who rely on their child benefit to pay a bill, that it is tough luck as it is taking money from them as well. It is a Government that tells struggling families who will be trying to get children back to school next September that it is taking another €50 from their back to school clothing and footwear allowance. That is the Government's message to the public. If this was not bad and politically and economically stupid enough, the Government then tops it off by saying that it will not cut its own salaries. It will fiddle a bit on the edges on the issue of allowances but it will not do anything radical or anything that might cause any discomfort to the political class.

It does all this at the very last minute on 20 December 2012 in the dying hours of this Dáil session. The Minister with responsibility for this matter does not bother to show up. Apparently, he has something better to do. Towards the end of the Minister of State's speech, he said, "The Bill is designed to allow funds be made available to the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to continue to provide the services that facilitate both Houses in the carrying out of their work". It is followed by this classic line: "I am sure that Deputies will support this very worthwhile aim". This Deputy will not be supporting the Government's aim for the reasons I have set out. If the Government expected to come into the Dáil looking for clearance of a budget of €324 million for the next three years and passive agreement or acquiescence from this side of the House, it was very wrong. I was struck by the fact that when the Minister of State made his opening statement, he left out one line.

It is on the second page. The Minister of State was speaking about how the debate in the Seanad had gone and that concerns were raised about a lack of transparency in the commission's operation and in communicating the efforts it makes. In fairness to the Minister of State I know why he left it out. The sentence reads, "In other words, there is a good story to tell here and it should be told vigorously." I am sure the Minister of State can see it in his script.

See this speech in context