Gerard P. Craughwell urges candidate briefing, backs TD cap referendum
Gerard P. Craughwell addressed the House on the financial and employment consequences for candidates on election, criticising inadequate pre-election information and describing personal losses on salary, pension and PRSI. He backed a referendum led by Senator MacDool to cap the number of TDs, called for more single‑portfolio ministers, and proposed an information booklet for prospective candidates.
Craughwell recounted that statutory instruments introduced during the 2008–2013 crisis prevented members employed in education from continuing in their roles, costing him €10,000 a year and other colleagues up to €20,000. He argued that a public candidate should never have to sacrifice income as a result of election and that these implications should be disclosed before people stand.
He explained that despite making full pension contributions and being obliged to serve 20 years, he does not qualify for a pension at the end of service and receives only a small sum to make up the difference. He also criticised PRSI arrangements imposed in the FEMPE days, saying Class K contributions applied to members of this House, the judiciary, the Attorney General and the President are widely accepted as unconstitutional.
Craughwell said he supports Senator MacDool’s proposal for a referendum to cap the number of TDs to prevent continual growth of the Chamber. He added that if such a referendum is run, the State should increase the number of ministers so that ministers do not carry three or four portfolios and can be assigned to a single department.
He praised the work of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform during the crisis but said its overarching reach has sometimes limited what can be done in the public service. He suggested it may be time to revert to a single ministry for finance, and noted he supports the bill generally apart from that structural point.
Craughwell urged the House to provide an information booklet to anyone seeking election and to issue clear terms and conditions to newly elected members on arrival. He framed this as a basic expectation of any good employer and said the public would not react negatively to reasonable transparency on these matters.
Income losses on election
Craughwell recounted that statutory instruments introduced during the 2008–2013 crisis prevented members employed in education from continuing in their roles, costing him €10,000 a year and other colleagues up to €20,000. He argued that a public candidate should never have to sacrifice income as a result of election and that these implications should be disclosed before people stand.
Pension and PRSI concerns
He explained that despite making full pension contributions and being obliged to serve 20 years, he does not qualify for a pension at the end of service and receives only a small sum to make up the difference. He also criticised PRSI arrangements imposed in the FEMPE days, saying Class K contributions applied to members of this House, the judiciary, the Attorney General and the President are widely accepted as unconstitutional.
Referendum on number of TDs and ministerial staffing
Craughwell said he supports Senator MacDool’s proposal for a referendum to cap the number of TDs to prevent continual growth of the Chamber. He added that if such a referendum is run, the State should increase the number of ministers so that ministers do not carry three or four portfolios and can be assigned to a single department.
Role of public expenditure and reform and finance ministry structure
He praised the work of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform during the crisis but said its overarching reach has sometimes limited what can be done in the public service. He suggested it may be time to revert to a single ministry for finance, and noted he supports the bill generally apart from that structural point.
Information booklet for candidates
Craughwell urged the House to provide an information booklet to anyone seeking election and to issue clear terms and conditions to newly elected members on arrival. He framed this as a basic expectation of any good employer and said the public would not react negatively to reasonable transparency on these matters.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Other speeches
Tego samego dnia All speeches from this day →
Éamon Ó Cuív
Éamon Ó Cuív praises deputy O'Keefe as rural champion
Éamon Ó Cuív
Éamon Ó Cuív praises Deputy O'Keefe's service and funding skill
Victor Boyhan
Victor Boyhan on Tobacco Bill: Warns of Illicit Trade, Retail Burden
Sharon Keogan
Sharon Keogan criticises government, urges vote for independents
Gino Kenny
Gino Kenny Condemns Gaza Violence, Demands Occupy Territories Bill
Bríd Smith
Bríd Smith calls to end 100 years of Fianna Fáil and Fianna Gael
Transcript
Thank you very much, Lasko Earlett. Minister, you're welcome to the House. Minister, we're in an electoral cycle right now, and one of the things that I regard as very poor form from this House, and that is the information provided to candidates as to the implications that may affect them on election to the Parliament, whether it's the lower house, the Dáil or the Channot. In my own case, when I got elected to this House, I took a hit of €10,000 a year on salary, because although this House is based on people bringing their professional expertise to the House, based on the panel they're elected to, during the crisis in the 2008 to 2013, legislation was written and statutory instruments was written, and one of those statutory instruments prevented members of this House who were employed in education from continuing in their educational role. And in my particular case, it cost me €10,000 a year. I should have been informed of the implications of being elected before I was elected. I know other colleagues have suffered a hit of as much as €20,000 a year. A member of the public seeking election in this House should never have to sacrifice income as a result of it. Some of the things that have happened here, there are issues with respect to salaries for members of this House, there are issues with respect to pension. In my own case, I make full pension contributions, and I'm obliged to do that for 20 years' service in this House, but I do not qualify for a pension at the end of my service. I get a paltry sum to make up the difference. PRSI, again, brought in in the FEMPE days, and it is widely accepted that the PRSI that was inflicted on members of this House, members of the judiciary, the Attorney General and the President, under Class K, are unconstitutional. Yes, they continue to fight that one. So, I think we need to do that. I want to support Senator MacDool on a referendum to cap the number of TDs that will be elected. We cannot continue to see the Chamber grow over and over and over again, up to maybe 1,000 people in the future. But I also would say, if you're going to run a referendum on the number of TDs, we should also increase the number of ministers. It is absolutely outrageous that some ministers are carrying three and four portfolios. We should have ministers who are assigned to a single job overseeing a single department. And I have no difficulty in supporting that. I know there may not be great public taste for that. People seeing them as being well off, looked after, whatever. But we need ministers who are on top of their brief, all of the brief, all of the time. And finally, I will say, with respect to your own department, there are times when I have found that the overarching reach of public expenditure and reform has been limiting, if you want, with respect to what we can do in the public service. But they do have to be admired for what they did during the crisis in this country. But maybe it's time now to revert back to a single ministry for finance. I do support the bill and I support everything about it, apart from that. But I would ask that we would take on board an information booklet for people who are seeking the election. And as soon as they come into this house, then that they get an information booklet with respect to their terms and conditions of employment and how those terms and conditions, it's what any good employer would do. And I think sometimes we're afraid to do it because we're afraid of a public lash back. The public will never lash back over what they see as reasonable. Thank you. Thank you.