asked the Minister for Finance if it is intended to end the practice of paying ministerial pensions to persons who are already in receipt of Dáil, European Parliament or judicial salaries; if it is intended to introduce any other modification to the ministerial pensions scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I do not propose to promote legislation to modify the pension terms of ministerial office-holders. The arrangement under which members of the Oireachtas or of the European Parliament who cease to be ministerial office-holders but draw their ministerial pensions in addition to their parliamentary allowances was made by legislation, that is, in the Ministerial and Parliamentary Office Act, 1938, following acceptance of the relevant recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into ministerial and other salaries, etc. Serving office-holders do not receive pensions in respect of offices which they previously held. The Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the public sector, which is an independent body has, in its reports of 1972 and 1979, taken the level of all benefits available, including superannuation, and the conditions under which they are paid into account in making recommendations on the remuneration of office-holders. I have no doubt that they will again have regard to the superannuation provisions of office-holders in the course of their present review.

Is the Minister not aware of the grave public concern about the fact that former ministerial office holders who are still Members of the Oireachtas and who have Oireachtas salaries also receive pensions for their previous ministerial office? Does he not think that 50 years after the introduction of the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act, 1938, it is now time that this procedure was reviewed particularly in a time of such grave economic stringency when the Minister is asking everybody to tighten their belts?

As I have said in my reply, this has been in operation since 1938. It was taken into account in 1972 and 1979 by the review bodies and they made no such recommendation as outlined by the Deputy.

Does the Minister accept that a proposal along the lines suggested in the question to modify or abolish pensions payable to people already in other useful employment would be a far more significant political gesture than his recent decision to defer the payment of the 15 per cent increase to people who are in single job positions?

Could I ask the Minister——

Is it not in order for the Minister to answer one question before proceeding to the next?

I cannot compel anyone to answer questions in this House.

The Minister refused to answer it.

No, I did not refuse to answer it.

I waited for some time before getting up to ask my question.

I am sorry for delaying the House. As far as the 15 per cent deferral is concerned, that affects dual office holders also and not just single office holders. Also this was only an interim report of the review body. We will await the outcome of their full report which will deal with levels of pay, pension, remuneration and conditions generally.

Am I to take it from the Minister's reply that the Government do not propose to facilitate the passage of the Oireachtas and Ministerial Pensions Bill, 1986, referred to in item 14 on today's Order Paper, when it is brought forward by the Progressive Democrats again in this present Dáil as it was in the past Dáil? If it is the Government's intention to oppose that Bill which would have the effect of bringing about what is suggested in the question here, on what grounds are the Government opposing the Bill?

That would be a matter for the Government when the time comes.

These are two different matters.

The review body are continuing their work. They are an independent body and will come back with their report. It was only an interim report which was published recently and when their full report is received I am sure that this matter can be fully debated and if legislation is required from any source, then it can be brought forward.

When will the full report be available?

I am told in the course of this year.

Would the Minister agree that many Members of the House are paid less than higher executive officers in the Civil Service and have disposable incomes of something in the region of the average industrial wage and less in many cases, despite the hours and the insecurity of the job? Would he also agree that Deputies do not receive any expenses within the constituencies as even every company representative receives for doing his duty? The solution to this whole question is a complete review of pay and conditions for TDs——

This is Question Time.

——and others, including a review of the whole pension situation. Would the Minister, on considering the matter, agree to allow Deputies who feel that they should not benefit, to voluntarily give up their pension rights?

Exactly.

Perhaps Deputy O'Malley will take the lead in this regard.

The Deputy is embarking on a speech.

In conclusion, would the Minister agree that those in receipt of outside pensions, such as ESB pensions, where many receive free electricity allowances also, should continue to draw salaries from this House? Would he further agree that anybody who receives——

I am afraid the Deputy is abusing Question Time.

I am just about to sit down.

This is part of the performing rights contract.

Would the Minister further agree——

I would ask the Deputy not to abuse Question Time in this way.

He will have to be paid royalties if he continues any longer.

A Cheann Comhairle, I have been interrupted by Deputy O'Malley. My relationship with the Performing Rights Society is well known. Would the Minister further agree that we should abolish payments to all TDs who receive over £100,000 in fees from the public purse already? Would he agree that this is a whole lot of nonsense that has been made up by some people independently?

Generally, in relation to all the points mentioned with regard to Members of the House I would agree with everything that Deputy Mitchell has said.

Would the Minister for Finance confirm that before any office holder receives a pension arising out of his office he must apply for the pension? As yet it is not known that any Deputy has failed to apply.

I am passing on to the Private Notice Question.

Is the Minister for the principle or against it?

There are too many Deputies offering. I am going on to the Private Notice Question.

I should like the opportunity of replying to a couple of the points made last. There are two things which need to be said here. First, the review body has two members of the Labour Court on it. Secondly, it is well known by quite a number of the membership of this House that everybody who is honoured to perform in a ministerial capacity must sever any links he or she has in any other capacity. That may last for a short term or a long term; nobody ever knows. That factor is not taken into account. It is disappointing, as Deputy Mitchell has said, to find Deputies and a former Minister putting forward such ideas. These matters were dealt with by independent review bodies before I was born, more recently in 1972 and 1979 and at the present time. That should be taken into account by the Deputies in this House and then, by their statements, the public at large would really know what the true position is.

Hear, hear.

Could I ask the Minister would he agree with me——

I cannot allow Question Time to be turned into a debate. I am turning to the next item on the Order Paper. I am concluding this matter. I call on Deputy Mitchell to conclude.

I am of no concern.

Would the Minister agree that this is a matter which should be dealt with by an independent commission, as it is being, and that it is appalling hypocrisy that the Leaders of two parties should raise this question in the Dáil for political purposes when they themselves are drawing substantial public pensions?

Hear, hear.

A final supplementary.

I pass to Private Notice Question in the name of Deputy Spring. Will Deputy Mac Giolla bear with me now? I have called a Private Notice Question.

A Cheann Comhairle, you will agree that due to the total incompetence of the two outgoing parties in the Coalition Government there are insufficient questions on the Order Paper so that instead of concluding Question Time at 3.45 p.m. we have finished at 3.15 p.m.

That is no reason for the Chair to allow a debate to ensue.

Four of the questions were put down by The Workers' Party.

Has the Deputy a question?

The supplementary questions in this Question Time are being taken up by the Fine Gael Party who have not one question down on the Order Paper. I want to ask a final supplementary. Would the Minister agree to review the position of the period in office after which a Minister gets a pension and extend it from three years to 30 years' service? In other words, after a Minister has been 30 years in service he gets a pension, as happens in the ESB or other employment after 30 years of paying into a pension fund? Would the Minister agree that that is the way to tackle the question?

And perhaps a salary on top of it.

Is the Minister very pleased at the incompetence shown by these so-called Opposition parties which leaves him with such an easy ride today?

All I can say is that there were nine questions, two of which were taken together. We have spent 45 minutes on those nine questions. I do not think any Deputy was denied the opportunity to ask any question.

Two questions were from me.

I replied to them and to all the supplementary questions that were raised. That is my duty here. In so far as what Deputy Mac Giolla has said now is concerned, I shall await the outcome of the review body's investigation. They are an independent body and if any action is required subsequent to their report, then we will take it and bring it before this House.

And will the Minister make sufficient——

There is a Private Notice Question in the name of Deputy Spring.

Deputy Mac Giolla must not have read his own letters.