Derek McDowell (Labour)

A not insignificant issue struck me when reading the Bill. Senator O'Toole referred to it at the end of his contribution, namely, the issue of breaks in service. It is not at all clear that Members of this or the other House who are defeated at the next election will still qualify for payment of their pensions under the existing scheme. It is fairly clear from the Bill that teachers who take a career break of three or four years, say, to look after their children will not benefit under the old system when they return but will be treated under the new scheme. This is very serious and will come into play much earlier than the basic provisions of the Bill.

There is a specific provision relating to Dáil Deputies. The Schedule where we insert an amendment into the 1990 Act seems to make clear and to conform with what the Minister said during the course of his contribution that it does not apply to those who were first elected before 2004. However, it sits uncomfortably with the other provision in the body of the Act which does not exclude civil servants. Section 2(6), to which Senator O'Toole referred, refers to public servants and does not specifically exclude Members of the Oireachtas and contains what appear to be different provisions regarding breaks in service. There is a problem for Dáil Deputies, and there is clearly a problem for virtually all other public service employment, including that of teachers, where people want to take a few years out.

I have said on a number of occasions in this House and in the other House that the public service generally will have to be a good deal more flexible in the future in terms of allowing people a few years out. Many Ministers, including this Minister, are on record on more than one occasion as saying they believe it would be a good approach to have some cross-stream mobility between the private sector and the public service whereby people who have worked for, say, ten years in the Department of Transport could work somewhere else for five years and return to the Department or to the public service generally if they so wish. The public service can only benefit from giving people an opportunity to take time out in the private sector. This measure clearly runs in the face of all that rhetoric because it constitutes a serious disincentive to anybody to do that, because if they go away without a specific agreed time for coming back, they cannot come back under the same pension arrangements. They will come back effectively as new entrants and lose out on the benefits of the old system.

Others have referred to specific provision regarding the Taoiseach. I find that rather strange. I accept what the Minister says, that Taoisigh need to be treated with a certain respect and that there is a particularity attaching to that office. However, one could make the same case for others. The same case could very obviously be made for Ministers and for Deputies. Ministers are obliged to give up participation in private industry. I am familiar with the position of legal practitioners — there is at least one in the current Cabinet — who are required to desist from any private involvement, and it is not that easy to go back to it if they cease to be a Minister. I really do not see why we take a particular view of the Taoiseach and do not take the same view of other Ministers.