Liam Twomey (Fine Gael)

There must be very little work for those Ministers of State to do. Is there sufficient work to require the deployment of eight civil servants to one Minister of State? Perhaps these officials are managing clinics on behalf of their Ministers. Will the use of ministerial and departmental credit cards be reviewed? From what I can gather, there are no significant checks on the use of such credit cards for so-called miscellaneous expenses, purchasing rounds of drink in Brussels and so on. These are issues that should have been included in this debate.

We will undoubtedly be accused in the media of taking a self-interested perspective in discussing this legislation. Most public representatives define their role differently to how it is generally perceived. Oireachtas Members are first and foremost viewed as legislators, as defined in the Constitution. Our betters have been discussing these issues in the media, making the case that we should confine ourselves to legislation and policy. Before the last election, I confined myself to a significant degree to the important legislation then being debated in regard to nursing homes, the Medical Council and pharmacies. I also undertook a substantial amount of work on policy development at that time. Regrettably, when I was canvassing for the election, nobody asked me about that legislation. However, several people observed that I had been seldom seen about the place. Among the most ferocious of these individuals were members of my own party.

In short, an exclusive focus on legislation and policy puts one in danger of losing one's seat. Most constituents perceive the role of a Deputy as beyond merely legislative. In other words, to be effective public representatives, we cannot be confined to Leinster House. No account has been taken of that reality in this debate. The Minister of State compares Leinster House to the European Parliament where Members sign in for plenary session. However, Deputies and Senators, who have an important role to play as public representatives in their constituencies, often work very differently to MEPs.

There must be further debate on the proposal to introduce a swipe card system for Members. I am not of the same mind as those Fianna Fáil Members who apparently expressed their distaste to journalists at being treated like factory workers. That attitude is contemptuous of workers who clock in and out every day. My point is that our role is not specifically confined to Leinster House. That must be acknowledged and taken on board before any such swipe card system is introduced. Many Members who are within striking distance of their constituency will leave the House for certain periods during the day to attend meetings and so on. Some may return to their home or constituency office for a short time before returning to participate in a late vote. People put themselves out in this way all the time. The notion of having to swipe in and out reflects a lack of understanding on the part of the Government in terms of how Members conduct their business. The Minister of State must keep in mind how Deputies and Senators work in fulfilling their role as public representatives.

If such a system is introduced, there will be a strong case for the abolition of the pairing system between Ministers and Opposition Members. If the purpose of this measure is to ensure Members are confined within the walls of Leinster House, there is no justification for Ministers going here, there and everywhere on sitting days. They should be obliged to organise their schedules in such a way that business requiring them to leave Leinster House must be conducted on non-sitting days. Unless they are sick or on maternity leave, they should be obliged to be in Leinster House on the days the Dáil and Seanad sit. I am interested in the Minister of State's views in this regard.

When I raised the issue of increments on Second Stage, the Minister of State responded that anybody could challenge anything and that the matter could be taken to court at any stage. I suggested that a reduction of 25% in increment payments to every Deputy and Senator would provide the same saving to the State in the period leading up to the next election and would entirely negate the prospect of a legal challenge. The Minister of State did not indicate whether the Government is considering a broader review of long-service increments, with a possible reduction for all members of the Civil Service and public service.

I recently submitted a query to the Department of Finance regarding pension arrangements for county managers. It was pointed out to me that having completed their seven years in office, the latter can retire on substantial pensions and with significant termination payments. The answer that finally came back from the Department in response to my query was quite staggering. I was told there is a special gratuity of six months' salary and an immediate payment on leaving office of one and a half times the salary. This means that county managers who retire immediately receive two years' salary on retirement and if they have served for more than 20 years as a member of the local authority, which is usually the case, they will get ten years added to their pension, which, in effect, means they can retire early on a full pension. That is quite generous.

Again, there has been no indication in this House as to whether there will be any change to such payments. Such change is more important than tinkering around with the arrangements whereby sitting Members can draw ministerial pensions. As I said, I am concerned that this is more about the optics of being perceived to be doing something to ease the understandable public anger about what is happening in the wider economy, and that politicians are being singled out as a specific group for a hammering. That will not make much difference in the long term when it comes to resolving the core problems of payments across the Civil Service and public service. I would have hoped the Minister would have focused more on that aspect of the matter.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no objections to the measures under discussion, apart from a significant minority who might object to the amendment tabled by the Minister of State. I cannot speak for other parties but, overall, the majority approves of having a single monthly payment rather than separate allowances. That may be the way forward on this issue. I have not heard any major objections to the legislation. The rest of the legislation points out that more could have been done. More discussions should have been held on the broad range of what is actually happening. The director of FÁS had to resign, as did the financial regulator, basically for making one hell of a mess of what was going on within their organisations. However, the lump sum payments and pensions on which they retired would even make the former Taoiseach weep, although he has been the least affected by these cuts. To instill confidence and regain the public's trust in what we do, we should have looked at every aspect across the civil and public service, and not just ourselves. Politicians have no problem in taking the lead. From the viewpoint of gaining public trust, it would probably be better to be seen to pay more than comparable grades. For instance, we are linked to the standard principal officer's grade in the Civil Service, but there is no harm in us paying a little bit more. However, if we are really going to make reforms and show that we can do things differently, we need to have a debate on what can be done across the Civil Service and the public service. There was great concern about whether the financial regulator fulfilled his role properly, so we need to decide whether or not these sorts of pay-offs are justifiable. If not, something needs to be done in that regard.