Liam Twomey (Fine Gael)

We would all welcome many of the changes proposed in the legislation and support the reasons for them. These are changing economic times and everyone must play their part. People who hold positions as Chairmen of committees have had their allowances cut in half and Vice Chairmen, Whips and convenors have had their allowances abolished. Members' travel expenses have been massively reduced. What is proposed in this Bill is an expansion of that approach.

I am concerned that this legislation may be challenged in the future. One of the reasons given for the proposed reduction in the ministerial pensions paid to sitting TDs being limited to 25% is that the Minister, Deputy Lenihan, said the Attorney General's advice was that those affected could claim a form of property right and that the reduction had to be proportionate to that imposed on other groups. Essentially, the Minister was saying that the reason it is not proposed to abolish ministerial pensions for sitting TDs is that they could take the Government to court and make the case that they had an expectation that they were due to receive a ministerial pension and therefore they should be paid it. If the reduction in the ministerial pension is limited to 25% that would seem to pass any such test because it is proportionate.

I was interested in that aspect, given that it is proposed Members' long service increments will be abolished. I question if that measure could be challenged by the individuals concerned who had an expectation that they would receive a long service increment. Members who were elected in the previous election would have had an expectation that they were to receive a long service increment. The explanatory memorandum indicates that the savings arising from this measure in a full year is estimated to be €128,000. The savings that will arise when the long service increments are abolished after the next general election will be approximately €500,000. If the Government had decided to make a 25% reduction in the long service increments for all the individuals concerned, they would be no possibility that measure would be challenged in any court because its application would be seen to be proportionate. A 25% reduction in the figure of €500,000 would equate to the €128,000 savings that will be achieved under the proposed measure. While politically it may appear better, there is a question as to whether this measure could be challenged legally at some point in the future. Individuals who would have expected to receive their first or second long service increment may consider challenging this measure using the advice the Attorney General gave the Minister, Deputy Lenihan, as the reason for the reduction in ministerial pensions by 25%.

In regard to the abolition of long service increments after the next general election, I would like to tease out this proposal as it involves legal issues. A Senator's pay is linked to a TD's pay, which in turn has been linked to the pay of a principal officer in the Civil Service. Even though that linkage is not covered under the Constitution or any defined legal agreements, it has come about in terms of reports on Government in recent years in terms of the linking of a TD's pay to that of the pay of a standard principal officer grade in the Civil Service. A conflict may arise as to whether that linkage could be challenged. Perhaps the Government has plans in regard to the payment of long service increments to staff in the civil and public service, but the Minister should be mindful that these measures could be legally challenged. That is the issue that stands out when one considers the debates that have taken place on this matter. There is strong potential that the immediate abolition of long service increments would be legally challenged, but there could also be a legal challenge if they were to be abolished after the next general election.

In regard to ministerial pensions, it seems wrong that a TD who loses ministerial office should continue to be paid a ministerial pension as long as he or she is a Member of the Oireachtas. The ministerial pension scheme and the pension scheme for TDs and Senators is generous compared with private sector pension schemes. That reflects the unpredictable nature of being a Member of the Oireachtas.